Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from orders made by HHJ Wildblood in July 2014 concerning the contact arrangements between a father and his two daughters, aged 16 and 14. Following an incident in June 2008 involving the father's new wife and one of the daughters, contact between the father and the children deteriorated significantly. The mother sought a residence order and suspension of contact, while the father sought contact. Subsequent proceedings involved fact-finding hearings, expert reports, therapy attempts, and multiple judicial decisions over several years. The court found the father's conduct unwise in several respects but rejected allegations of sexual abuse made by the children as untrue. Therapy efforts to address the children's hostility towards the father were unsuccessful. The father’s application for direct contact was refused, with provision made for indirect contact, and an order was made prohibiting further child arrangements applications by the father for a specified period. The father appeals against the refusal of direct contact and related orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge erred in refusing to order direct contact between the father and the children.
- Whether the court should have appointed an expert to assist in informing the children of the court’s factual findings, particularly regarding rejected allegations against the father.
- Whether the making of a section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order restricting further applications was appropriate in the circumstances.
- Whether the court’s overall management of the case and approach to achieving contact was flawed or amounted to a breach of the parties’ and children’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge failed to order the appointment of a suitably qualified expert to advise on how to inform the children of the findings of fact made in 2010, particularly the rejection of allegations of sexual abuse by the father.
- The children have been allowed to persist in a false belief about the father's conduct, impeding progress towards contact.
- The court prematurely ended proceedings without taking further steps to facilitate contact.
- The section 91(14) order prohibiting further applications by the father was wrongly made.
- The family justice system as a whole failed by inaction, delay, and lack of robust strategy, akin to the situation in Re A (Intractable Contact Dispute: Human Rights Violations).
- The court had the power and duty to act of its own motion to resolve the impasse, regardless of whether the father requested such steps.
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments beyond their opposition to the father's appeal and support for the judge's orders.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999 |
Summarises relevant case law on contact and parental responsibility; emphasises duties and responsibilities of parents in contact disputes. |
Used to confirm that the judge applied established legal principles correctly and to underline the importance of parental responsibility. |
| Re A (Intractable Contact Dispute: Human Rights Violations) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104, [2014] 1 FLR 1185 |
Example of systemic failings in family justice leading to prolonged contact disputes. |
Distinguished from the present case; the court rejected the father's submission that this case involved wholesale failings of the family justice system. |
| Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines Residence and Religious Heritage) [1999] 2 FLR 583 |
Guidelines for making section 91(14) Children Act 1989 orders restricting further applications. |
Applied to justify the order restricting the father from making further child arrangements applications for a specified period to prevent continued litigation harming the children. |
| Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and anor [1986] AC 112 |
Legal principle concerning the capacity of children to make decisions and the role of parental responsibility. |
Referenced to emphasise that parental responsibility continues despite the child’s age and that parents must use reasonable means to ensure compliance with contact arrangements. |
| Cambra v Jones [2014] EWHC 2264 (Fam) |
Limits on use of force in parental responsibility and parenting of teenagers. |
Used to underscore that parental responsibility includes persuading and managing teenage children’s behavior without resort to brute force. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully reviewed the extensive factual history and the numerous judicial decisions made over several years. It acknowledged the complexity and intractability of the family dynamics, including the entrenched hostility of the children towards the father. The court found that the judge had not misapplied the law and had acted within the proper judicial discretion in refusing direct contact, given the risk of emotional harm to the children if contact were forced prematurely.
The court rejected the father's criticism that the judge failed to appoint an expert to assist in informing the children of the findings of fact, noting that the father had not pursued such an application when the issue was live and that the judge had followed expert advice recommending caution in disclosure, consistent with the children’s progress in therapy. The failure of therapy was not attributable to the court.
The court also considered alternative proposals such as wardship orders, remitting the case to a Family Division Liaison judge, contact through the paternal family, and immediate contact orders, but found these either impractical or contrary to professional advice. The judge’s decision to impose a section 91(14) order restricting further applications was justified to prevent ongoing damaging litigation.
The court emphasized that the responsibility for resolving the impasse primarily lies with the parents, particularly the mother, who has a significant influence over the children’s attitudes. The court highlighted the importance of parental responsibility as a fundamental concept involving duties owed to the child, extending beyond legal rights.
The court concluded that the family justice system had not failed in this case and that the judge’s management and decisions were well within the range of reasonable judicial choices. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the father's appeal against the orders made by HHJ Wildblood on 9 July 2014.
The direct contact application was refused, with provision for indirect contact every two months, and a section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order was upheld restricting further child arrangements applications by the father for a specified period. The court recognized the severe emotional harm that forcing contact might cause and endorsed the judge’s cautious approach.
The decision underscores the principle that courts must carefully balance the welfare of children against parental contact rights, and that parental responsibility includes the duty to foster relationships despite difficulties. The ruling does not set new legal precedent but affirms established principles and the importance of judicial discretion in complex family disputes.
The court also issued a strong admonition to both parents regarding their shared responsibility for the harm caused to the children and urged the mother, in particular, to take steps to improve the children’s understanding and relationship with their father to prevent further emotional damage.