K v F

Where domestic abuse has been established, the court must assess its impact on the child and both parents, and the risks arising from making a child arrangements order. Contact may be substantially restricted, including to indirect contact only, where the child’s welfare and emotional safety require it. The court must consider the child’s wishes and feelings, the effects of the abuse, parental insight, likely behaviour and the safety of contact before, during and after it. Family members without appropriate expertise should not be tasked with mediating contact or carrying out risk assessments. A failure to recite every relevant principle will not invalidate an order if the judgment, read as a whole, shows that the welfare analysis was correctly undertaken.

The father appealed against an order made by HHJ Redgrave in private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989. The order provided for indirect contact only with the parties’ six-year-old daughter, by monthly letters, gifts or cards. The father sought supervised direct contact progressing to ordinary weekend and holiday contact.

The first-instance judge had made findings of domestic abuse against the father. Both children expressed that they did not wish to see him. The father rejected the findings and had not undertaken a domestic abuse perpetrator programme. The appeal concerned whether the judge had failed to address the authenticity of the younger child’s wishes, disregarded section 7 recommendations, and inadequately explained the decision for indirect contact only.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order for indirect contact between the father and T was not wrong and was probably the only realistic order available on the facts.
2. Following findings of domestic abuse, the court must apply the welfare checklist with reference to the abuse and consider the harm already suffered and the risk of further harm. An order for contact should be made only if the child’s and resident parent’s physical and emotional safety can, so far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact. The court must also consider the effect of the abuse on the child and the parent-child relationships, the motivation of each parent, the likely behaviour of the abusive parent, and the parties’ capacity to appreciate the effect of past abuse and the risk of future abuse. The guidance in PD12J was applied.
3. The first-instance judge was entitled to rely on the established findings that the children had been affected by domestic abuse, the father lacked insight, T did not wish to see him, and no perpetrator programme had been completed. The judge was not required to follow the section 7 recommendations where she considered the proposed role for family members in mediation and risk assessment unrealistic and unsafe.
4. Although the judge could usefully have referred expressly to the child’s right to family life, the fundamental importance of parent-child contact, and the statutory presumption of parental involvement under section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, those omissions did not undermine the decision when the judgment was read as a whole.
5. The challenge based on alleged maternal coaching was not made out. The judge’s conclusion that T’s views were authentic was secure. A different outcome might have been justified if T had sought contact or the father had completed a perpetrator programme. The father was encouraged to maintain monthly letters, and the mother was expected to encourage T to respond.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from HHJ Redgrave’s order dated 15 July 2022 dismissed.
• Family Court at Bromley: order for indirect contact only between the father and T, with no child arrangements order for R.