FA-2024-000359 - [2025] EWHC 857 (Fam)

The appellant’s case

On behalf of the appellant mother, Ms. Mehta and Ms. Bruce submit that the judge should not have interfered with the decision of the District Judge who had previously determined that it was necessary and proportionate, and in circumstances where it had already had a three day fixture in February.

Ms. Mehta and Ms. Bruce accept that the judge amended the order to provide that the court had determined that a separate fact finding hearing was not necessary (as opposed to what was said in the judgment, which was that a fact finding hearing was not necessary). They submit, however, that in those circumstances the judge should at least have ordered a full section 7 report with the ISW to have made recommendations on an either/or basis. As it was, the judge seemed to have set up the instruction of the ISW on the basis that the father’s version of events was correct. Following on from this, the judge was wrong to direct that the ISW should report on a plan for the re-establishment of direct contact.

They also submit that the judge was wrong to order ‘live’ video contact where the appellant did not support it, and assert that it would expose her and the children to an unmanageable risk of harm. In so doing, they argue that the judge failed to take into account the advice of Cafcass, the evidence of the local authority assessment, and PD12J. Additionally, they argue that too much weight was attached to the wishes of the children.

Ms. Mehta took me to the schedule of allegations, which included the allegations made by the appellant and the responses of the respondent. She submitted that the admissions made by the respondent father were, at most, partial, and sought to blame the appellant mother for being abusive to him, for triggering his PTSD, and alienating the children. She said that the gulf between the allegations and the admissions was very significant and needed to be determined by the court.

Finally, Ms. Mehta said that the judge appeared to have misunderstood the mother’s position at the hearing before him, believing that she was not seeking orders for no contact in the long run, subject to the outcome of any risk assessment. This led him into error in his approach to the case all round. She said that the judge’s decision was somewhat confusing, given differences between what he said in his judgment and the order (which he amended when submitted by counsel).