G (Children) (Supervised Contact), Re

In deciding whether to progress child contact, the court must identify the nature of any future risk, assess its likelihood and consider its consequences. The assessment is fact-sensitive and may include the setting and duration of contact, supervision, evidence of change and therapy, and the children’s vulnerability and resilience.

Good-quality supervised contact does not by itself displace earlier findings arising from ordinary family life. Diagnostic labels are not determinative. The court should focus on the behaviour and personality traits creating risk, using clinical criteria only insofar as they assist understanding. A phased programme involving therapy and supervision falls within the court’s wide welfare discretion where the evidence and risks have been properly evaluated.

The father appealed against Williams J’s order of 18 May 2023, reported at [2023] EWFC 118. The order provided that the children would live with the mother and set out a phased progression from supervised contact to unsupervised and overnight contact, linked in part to the father’s engagement with psychotherapy.

The order followed unappealed findings in the fact-finding judgment reported at [2022] EWHC 140 (Fam) of emotional and physical abuse and a continuing risk of harm in certain circumstances. The appeal challenged the identification and assessment of future risk, the weight placed on the court-appointed psychiatrist’s evidence, the treatment of other evidence, and the proportionality of the contact programme. The central issue was whether the judge had made an evaluative error or exceeded the broad welfare discretion.

Appeal dismissed. Lady Justice King delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Lewis agreeing.

1. The judge had adequately identified the relevant risk. The father’s past emotionally and physically abusive behaviour created a risk of future harm if repeated. The risk could manifest as physical aggression or frightening verbal behaviour when dysfunctional personality traits were triggered by stress, anxiety or challenge.
2. A proper assessment required consideration of the nature of the risk, its likelihood, and the likely consequences if it materialised. Those matters had been addressed. The assessment also properly considered the amount and setting of contact, supervision, evidence of change, therapeutic progress, the children’s vulnerability and resilience, and the parents’ ability to insulate the children from hostility.
3. The absence of incidents during extensive supervised contact did not require the earlier findings to be set aside. Supervised contact took place in an artificial setting and did not replicate the stresses of ordinary day-to-day family life. The father’s continuing rejection of the findings was also relevant.
4. The judge was entitled to accept the psychiatric evidence that the father had dysfunctional narcissistic personality traits and that psychotherapy was the best means of addressing the associated risks. The dispute about whether the traits satisfied the full criteria for a personality disorder was not determinative. The judge properly focused on the underlying behaviour and risk rather than being distracted by diagnostic labels.
5. The phased programme, including continued supervision for some contact and progression after therapeutic engagement, was within the judge’s wide welfare discretion. Another judge might have structured the order differently, but that did not establish appellate error or disproportionality. The order remained in force, with overnight contact to be introduced in accordance with it or, if necessary, as determined by Williams J.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2023] EWCA Civ 1453, the appeal against the phased contact order was dismissed.
• Family Court at Guildford: Williams J made the order dated 18 May 2023, reported at [2023] EWFC 118, providing for the children to live with the mother and for contact with the father to progress from supervised to unsupervised and overnight contact.
• Fact-finding judgment: The unappealed findings concerning the father’s emotional and physical abuse were reported at [2022] EWHC 140 (Fam).