Father v Mother & Anor

When determining contact between children and an imprisoned parent, the court must balance the children’s relationship with that parent and their wishes and feelings against the impact of contact on the other parent and the household. Direct contact may be appropriate even after the parent’s conviction for serious offences against the other parent, particularly where the children actively wish to maintain the relationship and need reassurance about the parent’s circumstances. The court should assess the frequency and practical arrangements of contact carefully, seeking arrangements that are manageable and child-focused. Indirect contact, including letters or recorded messages, may not provide an equivalent relationship. The court may make a time-limited order under section 91(14) to control further applications while allowing the arrangements to be reviewed if circumstances materially change.

The father applied for orders regulating contact between his two children and him while he was serving a 12-year sentence following his conviction for two counts of raping the mother. The children wished to see and speak to their father. The mother and the Children’s Guardian opposed direct contact because of the likely impact on the mother and concern that the father might promote a false account of his conviction. The issue was how to balance the children’s relationship with their father and their need for reassurance against the welfare concerns and burden created by contact.

1. Contact order. The court ordered three in-person prison visits each year, approximately once in each school holiday, with dates to be agreed or, failing agreement, evenly spaced. The visits were to be facilitated by the father’s partner, Ms A, as no suitable family member identified by the mother was available.
2. The children actively wished to maintain their relationship with their father. Their age and understanding meant that they were likely to be worried about his imprisonment. Letters, recorded videos and recorded telephone messages were not equivalent to seeing him in person. Honest, age-appropriate engagement with the reality of the imprisonment was considered more likely to help the children come to terms with the situation.
3. The court also had to minimise the impact of contact on the mother and avoid arrangements becoming coercively controlling or an excessive burden on the household. The father’s request for monthly visits and twice-weekly telephone calls was excessive. A monthly telephone call was ordered as a proportionate balance between maintaining the relationship and limiting the burden.
4. The Children’s Guardian was directed to facilitate the first visit and was given liberty to apply if what occurred during that visit materially altered the balance. A section 91(14) order was made for one year to control further applications and hold the position while the arrangements were assessed.

First-instance decision in the High Court (Family Division). No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.