DP v PC

In a long-running private-law children case, a court may adopt a robust and summary approach only where the relevant issues have recently been properly and fully considered. Where an earlier application was withdrawn before the question of direct contact had been argued, the court should not treat the absence of a material change in circumstances as determinative. It must assess the children’s welfare broadly, consider relevant professional evidence and address the statutory presumption that parental involvement furthers welfare unless the contrary is shown. The court should consider the available arrangements and practical steps for facilitating direct contact.

The father appealed against an order dismissing his application for contact with his two sons. The application followed earlier proceedings in which direct contact had been accepted as beneficial, although the appropriate level of supervision had not been resolved. The father had withdrawn an earlier application before that issue was argued. The first-instance judge treated the absence of a material change in circumstances as preventing reconsideration and dismissed the application summarily. The appeal concerned whether that approach was permissible and whether the judge had adequately considered the children’s welfare, the professional reports and the statutory presumption favouring parental involvement.

1. The appeal was allowed. The first-instance judge’s summary dismissal of the father’s application was wrong and could not stand.
2. A change-in-circumstances threshold may be appropriate where a parent seeks to reopen issues recently and fully determined after a contested hearing. It was inappropriate here because the central issue concerning the terms of direct contact had never been ventilated or determined: the father had withdrawn his application before argument.
3. The judge was required to consider the children’s welfare more broadly. That included proper consideration of the available reports, including the recommendations that direct contact should continue, notwithstanding criticisms of the father’s conduct.
4. The welfare assessment had to be conducted consistently with the paramountcy principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the presumption in section 1(2)(a) that involvement of a parent in a child’s life furthers the child’s welfare unless the contrary is shown. The court should consider what steps and arrangements might facilitate direct contact.
5. The matter was remitted to His Honour Judge Wildblood QC, who was invited to decide how the case should be managed and whether to conduct future hearings.

• High Court (Family Division): allowed the appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Harrington dated 15 May 2015 and remitted the matter to His Honour Judge Wildblood QC.