C (Interim Contact: Procedural Irregularity), Re

A judge deciding interim contact must give reasons that identify the basis of the decision. The court must decide contact by a comprehensive assessment of the child’s welfare, with welfare paramount. The possible value of contact as evidence for a final hearing is only one consideration and cannot replace that assessment. An appellate court cannot fill gaps left by absent reasons. A failure to give reasons and undertake the required welfare analysis may make an interim contact decision wrong and its process procedurally irregular.

The father appealed an interim order made by HHJ George on 23 February 2026, which provided for supervised contact between the mother and their four-year-old child more frequently than the three-monthly contact recorded in an earlier order. The appeal challenged the absence of reasons and a full welfare analysis, and the judge’s apparent reliance on gathering evidence for the final hearing. The parties disputed whether informal contact had taken place before the February hearing; the High Court did not determine that dispute. The central issues were whether the interim contact decision was properly reasoned and whether it was reached by applying the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration.

Permission to appeal was granted and the father’s appeal was allowed.

1. Reasons. Where a judge makes a disputed decision, the parties must be able to understand its basis. The Court of Appeal had made clear, most recently in Re D (Threshold Findings and Final Orders at IRH) [2025] EWCA Civ 1362, that a judge must give reasons. An appellate court cannot fill gaps in a judgment that was not given, and counsel cannot clarify such a judgment. The absence of a judgment or clear reasons was procedurally irregular.
2. Welfare assessment. The court’s paramount concern under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 is the child’s welfare. Whether more frequent contact might help the court assess the mother’s commitment before the final hearing could be relevant, but had to be weighed with all the factors in the section 1(3) welfare checklist. A comprehensive and holistic analysis was required. The positive experience of one supervised session did not, by itself, establish that more frequent contact was in the child’s best interests.
3. Appeal and permission. The proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success, satisfying rule 30.3(7) of the Family Procedure Rules. Under rule 30.12(3), the interim contact decision was wrong and the process procedurally unfair and irregular because the judge gave no coherent or sufficient explanation or judgment. The court did not determine the father’s fourth ground, which concerned departure from professional recommendations and earlier decisions.
4. Further contact. The court confirmed that the stay concerned paragraph 5 of the February order and that the three-monthly contact recital in the June 2024 order remained in force. It considered that a further supervised contact session should take place before the final hearing in August, invited the parties to agree its details, and indicated that it might decide the narrow issue on the papers if they could not agree.

1. High Court (Family Division) — The father’s appeal was allowed and permission to appeal granted: [2026] EWHC 1854 (Fam) .
2. HHJ George — On 23 February 2026, the judge ordered more frequent supervised interim contact. That decision was appealed.