M v F

At a first hearing dispute resolution appointment, the court should distinguish between an interim child arrangements decision and a final order. A comprehensive long-term order should not be made where the judgment, evidence and procedural directions show that further investigation is required.

Where domestic abuse is alleged, interim contact must be assessed by reference to the child’s welfare and whether the arrangements would expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm. The court must consider the potential emotional impact of domestic abuse, the safety of the other parent, the child’s wishes and feelings, and the harm that excessive restriction or delay may cause. Allegations do not automatically require a cautious or supervised-contact approach, but they must be given proper weight.

The mother appealed from an order made by HHJ Tolson QC at a first hearing dispute resolution appointment in proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. The proceedings concerned arrangements for the parties’ ten-year-old daughter after allegations of domestic abuse, including an alleged assault on the mother and an incident during which the father allegedly shouted at the child.

The judge directed further investigation, including a Cafcass report, but approved arrangements which appeared to provide for extensive contact through the end of 2020 and beyond. The mother challenged both the making of a final order at that stage and the child’s best interests. The central issues were whether the order accurately reflected the judge’s intended interim decision and whether the arrangements created an unmanageable risk of harm.

1. Appeal allowed in substance. The child arrangements provisions extending beyond the next hearing were set aside. The interim provisions were also set aside because the quantity of contact ordered was substantially greater than the contact previously taking place and the judge had not been fully apprised of that fact.
2. The judgment at the FHDRA showed that the judge intended to make an interim order pending a further hearing and a Cafcass report. The order as drafted instead created a comprehensive long-term arrangement, including arrangements for future holidays and birthdays. It was therefore inconsistent with the judgment and too extensive to stand.
3. Under Practice Direction 12J, interim contact should not be ordered where allegations of domestic abuse remain unresolved unless the court is satisfied that the order is in the child’s interests and does not expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm. The assessment must include the impact of domestic abuse on the child’s emotional well-being, the other parent’s safety, and the need to protect against controlling or coercive behaviour.
4. The judge was entitled to consider the positive supervised-contact reports, the history of successful unsupervised contact and the potential harm to the child from delay or excessive restriction. However, he gave insufficient weight to the mother’s allegations, the child’s expressed wishes and feelings, and the difference between the contact previously enjoyed and the much greater contact ordered. A more gradual reintroduction would have been preferable.
5. Pending the next hearing, the court approved unsupervised contact every other weekend by agreement. The arrangements were in the child’s best interests and did not create an unmanageable risk, given the father’s separation from the family home, the absence of reported incidents since October, safeguarding measures, supportive professional involvement, and the positive observations of contact.

• High Court (Family Division): The appeal from HHJ Tolson QC’s order was allowed in substance. The long-term and interim child arrangements provisions were set aside, and the court approved interim unsupervised contact every other weekend.