A (A CHILD) (supervised contact) (s91(14) Children Act 1989 orders)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns private law proceedings regarding a child, A, who is nearly seven years old. The mother appealed orders made by HHJ Dawson on 20 May 2021, which confirmed that A should live with her father, provided for professionally supervised contact between A and the mother every fortnight, and prohibited any further applications under the Children Act 1989 relating to A for two years without court permission under section 91(14).

The mother applied for permission to appeal on 15 June 2021. Cohen J granted limited permission restricting the appeal to the contact order and the s91(14) order, refusing permission to appeal the residence order and refusal of adjournment. The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal. The mother’s renewed application for permission to appeal the rejected grounds was refused on 5 October 2021.

The background reveals a long and complex history of parental conflict. The mother, originally from Hungary and a medical doctor, intermittently works on locum contracts. She has three children from earlier relationships and a relationship with the father since 2013, with A born in 2015. The mother left the country in 2017 leaving the children with the father, later seeking to relocate the children to Hungary, which led to court proceedings.

The mother took A abroad for medical treatment but failed to return her as agreed, prompting child abduction proceedings. The mother made a child arrangements application offering limited supervised contact. She relocated without informing the father and failed to comply with court orders to return A and surrender her passport. Concerns about A’s welfare led to appointment of a Children’s Guardian, who made an urgent application to transfer residence to the father, granted in August 2019 and upheld on appeal.

A fact-finding hearing found the mother deliberately obstructed the father’s relationship with A by relocating covertly. Psychological and medical assessments were conducted, with evidence accepted that A was healthy and developing normally, and that the mother exhibited personality disturbance affecting her children adversely. The mother resisted recommended therapy and engaged in extensive litigation and complaint campaigns against the father and professionals involved.

The judge ordered that A live with the father, that contact with the mother be professionally supervised, and made a two-year s91(14) order restricting further applications without leave. The mother appeals the contact and s91(14) orders, arguing that supervised contact without provision for progression and the s91(14) order together improperly fetter the development of a natural relationship.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge was wrong to make a supervised contact order without specific provision for progression to unsupervised contact;
2. Whether the combination of the s91(14) order and supervised contact order impermissibly fetters progress towards unsupervised contact and a natural mother-child relationship.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The mother contended that the supervised contact order was inappropriate without explicit provision for progression to unsupervised contact.
• She argued that the s91(14) order, combined with supervised contact, effectively prevented any progress towards a more natural relationship for two years.
• The mother challenged the necessity and appropriateness of supervision, disputing findings about A’s health and welfare.
• Counsel for the mother accepted the judge’s findings of fact but contended that the legal combination of orders was flawed.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the facts found by the judge including the mother’s obstructive conduct, personality disturbance, and the impact on the child’s welfare. It accepted that supervised contact was necessary to protect the child from risks of abduction, emotional harm through denigration, and inappropriate medical scrutiny by the mother. The judge’s conclusion that supervised contact was the only viable option to maintain contact was upheld, particularly given the mother’s refusal to engage in recommended therapy.

The court analyzed the s91(14) order in light of established guidelines from Re P, emphasizing that such orders are discretionary, to be used sparingly, and must balance the welfare of the child with the statutory rights of parties to access the court. The court noted the changed landscape with increased litigants in person and use of electronic communications, which can lead to harassment and abuse of court processes.

The judge’s decision to impose a two-year restriction on applications without leave was justified by the mother’s campaign of harassment via repeated applications and unfounded complaints, which caused significant distress to the father and the child. The court highlighted that the order was even-handed, applying to both parents, reflecting a welfare-focused approach.

The court rejected the argument that the combination of supervised contact and a s91(14) order unlawfully fettered progress towards unsupervised contact. It emphasized that the s91(14) order acts as a filter rather than a bar, allowing future applications if credible evidence emerges. The court found no error in the judge’s approach and endorsed the reasoning that the orders facilitated contact and protected the child’s welfare amidst difficult parental conflict.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the mother's appeal against the supervised contact order and the s91(14) order.

The direct effect is that the child will continue to live with the father, have professionally supervised contact with the mother, and both parents are restricted from making further applications without leave for two years. The decision confirms that such orders can be combined where justified by the facts, without constituting an impermissible fetter on contact progression.

No new precedent was established beyond affirming the application of existing principles to complex, high-conflict private law cases involving parental harassment and child welfare concerns.