H, Re (A Child: Contact: Domestic Abuse)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a child arrangements order whereby the father is prohibited from having face-to-face contact with his three-year-old son for an indefinite period. The child lives with his mother. The parents' relationship began in 2016 and was marked by violence on both sides. The child was born in early 2021, but by two months old, the relationship between the parents was volatile, leading to the mother stopping unsupervised contact and the child becoming subject to a Child Protection plan for emotional abuse. Both parents obtained non-molestation orders against each other by early 2022.

The child developed a serious health condition requiring surgery, which the father blamed on the mother. In September 2022, a fact-finding hearing was recommended, and interim supervised contact was arranged. The mother alleged rape by the father in October 2022, later retracting and reinstating the allegation. The child and mother were placed in parent and child foster placements, and the father began weekly supervised contact. A fact-finding hearing in April 2023 found both parents' behaviour poor and damaging to the child.

Psychiatric and parenting assessments revealed complex mental health issues for both parents, with the mother showing potential for improvement and the father demonstrating narcissistic and borderline personality traits with controlling behaviour. Professional witnesses recommended limiting contact to indirect contact until the father showed evidence of change. The Guardian supported this approach, emphasizing the need for stability in the child's primary placement with the mother.

The final hearing in late 2023 resulted in orders that the child live with the mother, contact be limited to indirect communication three times a year after a single supervised "goodbye for now" session, and protective measures to safeguard the child's location and prevent removal from the mother's care. The father sought permission to appeal the cessation of direct contact and the length of a supervision order, with permission granted only for the contact issue.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the recorder erred in giving undue weight to the evidence of the psychiatric expert, Dr Freedman, in deciding to cease direct contact.
2. Whether the decision to cease direct contact between the father and child was justified given the circumstances of the case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The father argued that the cessation of direct contact was not justified as contact since November 2022 had been of good quality and the father had not breached preventative orders.
• He contended that the mother’s mental health had improved and that the risk identified by the recorder did not reflect the reality.
• The father asserted that the possibility of supervised contact with local authority support over 12 months was not properly considered.
• He claimed the order preventing contact for three years was excessive and lacked a clear strategy for reintroduction of contact.
• His counsel argued that Dr Freedman's evidence was flawed and unreliable due to the basis of her diagnoses.

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 acknowledged the complexity and difficulty of the case, emphasizing the paramount importance of the child’s welfare. It accepted the professional assessments identifying both parents’ significant mental health and behavioural issues, with the mother showing capacity for growth and the father demonstrating entrenched controlling and coercive behaviour. The court found that continuing direct contact posed a real risk of destabilising the child’s placement with the mother, which would cause significant harm to both.

The court carefully considered the psychiatric evidence, including Dr Freedman’s report and its evolution in light of social care professionals’ views. The court found no fatal flaws in the expert evidence that would undermine the overall conclusions. It was noted that Dr Freedman’s final position, shared by other professionals, was that direct contact was not viable at present due to the ongoing conflict and risk of harm.

The court balanced the loss to the child from cessation of direct contact against the risks of harm if contact continued. It concluded that the risk of harm from continuing direct contact was greater and that the stability of the child’s primary placement with the mother was vital. The court also considered, but ultimately rejected, the possibility of infrequent direct contact as no party supported this and the risks remained substantial.

The court addressed the father’s concern about lack of a clear plan for reintroduction of contact, noting that future contact would depend on the father’s ability to change his behaviour and engage in therapy. The supervision order could be extended, and the father would bear responsibility for progress.

In summary, the court’s reasoning was grounded in a thorough and holistic evaluation of all evidence, prioritizing the child’s welfare and safety while acknowledging the value of the parent-child relationship.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the decision to cease direct contact between the father and child, limiting contact to indirect communication for the foreseeable future to protect the child’s welfare and the stability of his placement with the mother. The decision reflects a careful balancing of risks and benefits, with no suitable alternative solutions identified. The ruling does not establish new precedent but affirms the application of established principles in complex domestic abuse and child welfare cases. The father may seek reinstatement of direct contact in the future subject to evidence of behavioural change, but the current order prioritizes the child’s safety and emotional stability.