PJ v HB

In private-law children proceedings, a parent’s non-acceptance of a judicial finding does not, without more, justify reducing contact. The court must assess whether the proposed reduction benefits or protects the child, having regard to the actual risk identified and the quality of the existing relationship. A reduction is inappropriate where no satisfactory connection is shown between the parent’s attitude and any risk to the child, or where the reduction offers no discernible benefit to the child. Subsequent evidence of parental insight and engagement with relevant intervention may reinforce the conclusion that existing contact should be restored.

The father appealed an order made by HHJ Davis in the Family Court at Yeovil on 7 September 2023. The order reduced his fortnightly staying contact with his four-year-old son to every third weekend and removed holiday contact. The reduction followed the father’s continuing refusal to accept findings concerning an accidental but avoidable injury to the mother during a contact handover, and his refusal to undertake recommended intervention.

The father had subsequently completed an online positive-parenting course and expressed acceptance of responsibility. The central issue was whether his attitude to the fact-finding outcome justified reducing contact in M’s interests.

1. Appeal allowed. The order reducing contact was set aside. The fortnightly staying-contact arrangements in force since January 2021 were reinstated.
2. The court was slow to interfere with the first-instance judge’s treatment of a case where a parent refused to accept a judicial finding. However, non-acceptance of a finding does not necessarily require an adjustment to the frequency of contact. The court must identify a satisfactory child-focused reason for changing contact.
3. The existing contact was of high quality and enjoyed by M. The mother raised no concern about the father’s care of M, and the judge had previously found that the father posed no risk to him. It was not apparent that reducing contact would make it better or safer, or that the effect of the reduction on M had been adequately considered.
4. The father’s later completion of a parenting course, and his more recent acceptance of responsibility for the accidental injury and regret concerning his letter to the Department for Work and Pensions, provided additional support for restoration of contact. The court recognised that the significance of this progress remained for the court below to assess after fuller evaluation.
5. Contact was to continue fortnightly, with agreed Christmas and January arrangements. The father was directed to file a statement addressing his attitude to the findings, the course and learning undertaken, and his attitude and behaviour towards the mother. The next hearing was to be relisted before HHJ Davis, with the CAFCASS assessment re-timed.

• High Court (Family Division): On 18 December 2023, the appeal from the Family Court order of 7 September 2023 was allowed. The reduced-contact arrangements were replaced by fortnightly staying contact.
• Family Court at Yeovil: HHJ Davis made the order under appeal on 7 September 2023, reducing contact to every third weekend and removing holiday contact.