K (Children), Re

Refusal or termination of direct parental contact is an exceptional outcome. It requires cogent welfare reasons and consideration of all reasonable means of promoting safe contact. The court must take a medium- and long-term view, scrutinise whether necessary steps have been taken, and treat no contact as a last resort. In domestic-violence cases, Practice Direction 12J – Child Arrangements & Contact Order: Domestic Violence and Harm requires attention to risk, the effects of violence, and possible advice, treatment or other intervention. A parent’s failure to apologise may bear on welfare and risk, but cannot operate as an independent moral precondition to contact.

Following the parents’ separation, the father sought direct contact with his two young children. A fact-finding hearing resulted in findings of controlling and aggressive behaviour and one historic incident of violence, but not routine physical violence. The children’s guardian initially proposed staged progression towards direct contact, but later recommended that no direct contact be attempted because of the children’s resistance, the mother’s anxiety, the father’s alleged lack of insight and the absence of a risk assessment. The recorder ordered that the children live with the mother and dismissed the application for direct contact, allowing only indirect contact. The father appealed. The central issue was whether the recorder had adequately considered alternative means of safely introducing direct contact.

1. Appeal allowed. The recorder’s order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Designated Family Judge at Exeter for directions, case management and future allocation.
2. Contact between parent and child is a fundamental element of family life and is almost always in the child’s interests. It may be terminated only in exceptional circumstances, for cogent welfare reasons, where there is no alternative and contact would harm the child. The court has a positive duty to maintain or reconstitute the relationship, must consider all available alternatives, and must treat cessation of contact as a last resort. These principles were applied from Q v Q [2015] EWCA Civ 991, reflecting the principles distilled in Re C (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) [2011] EWCA Civ 521.
3. In domestic-violence cases, Practice Direction 12J – Child Arrangements & Contact Order: Domestic Violence and Harm provides a structured approach. It includes controlling behaviour, requires consideration of the effects of violence and risk, and balances child safety against the usual welfare benefit of parental involvement. Following determination of the violence or abuse, the court should consider advice, treatment, risk assessment and other interventions, including suitable Cafcass-approved activity. Re W (Children: Domestic Violence) [2012] EWCA Civ 1619 [2014] 1 FLR 260 confirmed that the Practice Direction represents good practice and should be followed.
4. The recorder had not considered supervised contact, direct work, a risk assessment or the Child Contact Intervention Programme. The limited findings, the mother’s anxiety and the children’s reluctance did not remove the obligation to explore reasonable methods of safely promoting contact. The decision that direct contact was too risky was premature.
5. Vos LJ added that an apology or repentance could be relevant only insofar as it bore on the children’s welfare or risk. It could not be imposed as a freestanding moral condition of contact. Simon LJ agreed with the judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The father’s appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted to the Designated Family Judge at Exeter for directions, case management and future allocation.
2. Exeter Family Court: Recorder Chippindall made an order on 1 June 2015 that the children live with the mother, dismissed the father’s application for direct contact and provided for indirect contact only.