F v M & Ors

In child-contact appeals, the appellate court must respect the trial judge’s evaluative judgment, but may intervene where the decision is plainly wrong. Ending attempts at direct contact is premature where insufficient structured efforts have been made to test whether difficulties can be overcome, particularly where earlier supported contact showed that the children’s wishes were more nuanced than simple refusals. The court must consider the wider enforcement and contact-management options under the Children Act 1989. Short-term distress must be weighed against the significance of ending a parent-child relationship, and implacable parental hostility should not deter contact where welfare requires it.

The father appealed against a Family Court decision refusing direct contact with his three children and limiting contact to letters, cards, gifts and photographs. The first-instance judge considered the children’s expressed unwillingness, the mother’s opposition, delay, non-compliance, professional evidence and the likely long-term consequence that the relationship might end.

The appeal concerned the weight given to the long-term effects of ending direct contact, enforcement and contact-management options, and successful contact during an assessment by Dr Kennedy.

1. The appeal was allowed and remitted to the local Family Court for further hearing and allocation.
2. The appellate court applied the restraint required by Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27. Intervention is justified where the decision is plainly wrong or outside the reasonable ambit of disagreement.
3. The decision to cease attempts at direct contact was premature. Attempts had not formed part of a sustained overall strategy, and supported contact with the two younger children showed that their wishes were more nuanced than simple refusals.
4. The court had to consider short-term difficulty, a more focused contact strategy, and the broader enforcement mechanisms available under sections 11A to 11P of the Children Act 1989.
5. The label parental alienation was unnecessary, but implacable hostility by the residential parent should not deter contact where welfare required it.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal allowed against the Family Court decision dated 25 May 2020; remitted for further hearing.
• Family Court at Nottingham: direct contact was refused and limited indirect contact was ordered.