B v N (Domestic Abuse and Unsupervised Contact), Re

Where domestic abuse has been found, a court deciding child arrangements must apply the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction 12J framework alongside the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989. It must assess the effect of the abuse, future risk, likely behaviour during contact, the perpetrator’s capacity to recognise past abuse, and the safety of the child and resident parent. A Cafcass recommendation may be rejected only with clear reasons. Alleged alienating behaviour should be considered only after the child’s reluctance, any abusive conduct and whether the reaction is justified have been examined. Unsupervised contact requires a reasoned finding that the safeguards are met and that contact is beneficial.

This was an appeal by the mother against HHJ Cronin’s child arrangements order concerning the parties’ young son. Earlier findings included repeated physical and verbal domestic abuse by the father. The lower court ordered staged progression from supervised to unsupervised contact, despite Cafcass recommending continued supervision and despite the father’s incomplete domestic-abuse programme.

Permission was granted on grounds concerning the treatment of alleged alienating behaviour, departure from the Cafcass recommendation, and the safety of unsupervised community contact. The central issues were whether the lower court had applied the domestic-abuse framework correctly, given adequate reasons, and reached a decision open to it on the evidence.

Appeal allowed. Grounds 3, 4 and 6 succeeded. Paragraphs 2 to 8 of the lower court’s order were set aside. The High Court re-exercised the discretion rather than remitting the case, because it had the necessary transcript and evidence and further delay would not serve the child’s welfare.

1. The appellate court must respect the broad welfare discretion of the first-instance judge and exercise caution before interfering. A different possible outcome is insufficient, but intervention is justified where the decision is wrong, exceeds the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement, or is affected by serious procedural irregularity. The approach in G v G [1985] 1 WLR 647 and Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33 was applied.
2. Because domestic abuse had been found, the lower court had to apply Practice Direction 12J and the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989. It had to assess the effect of the abuse, future risk, likely behaviour during contact, the parents’ capacity to appreciate past abuse, and whether the child’s and mother’s safety could be secured. The judgment failed to undertake that analysis and gave no adequate reasons for rejecting the FCA’s risk assessment.
3. The use of domestic-abuse perpetrator programmes has a statutory footing under sections 11A, 11(3) and 11(5)(a)(ii) of the Children Act 1989, together with paragraph 33(a) of Practice Direction 12J. The lower court was wrong to suggest otherwise. It also failed to evaluate the father’s incomplete programme, continuing threatening conduct, lack of insight, and the child’s medical vulnerabilities.
4. On the totality of the evidence, the order for unsupervised contact exceeded the range of reasonable disagreement and was wrong. The evidence supported an unacceptable risk of unpredictable, aggressive or intimidating behaviour.
5. Alleged alienating behaviour had to be approached sequentially. The court should first identify the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal, then examine causation and whether the reaction is justified, before considering alienating behaviour by the caring parent. The lower court’s finding of unconscious alienation, without following that approach and without putting the allegation to the mother, was unsustainable.
6. The substituted order provided for professionally supervised contact at an NACCA-accredited centre once a month for at least two hours, periodic review, possible reconsideration of supervision after successful completion of a Respect-accredited programme, and continuation of indirect contact.

• High Court (Family Division): Appeal allowed on grounds 3, 4 and 6. Paragraphs 2 to 8 of the order dated 10 June 2026 were set aside and replaced following a fresh exercise of discretion.
• Family Court in Bristol: HHJ Cronin made a child arrangements order providing for staged progression from supervised to unsupervised contact. Reasons were handed down on 23 June 2026. Permission to appeal was refused by the judge and later granted on the papers on grounds 3, 4 and 6.