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

The hearing before the judge

On 9^th December 2024 a directions hearing was listed to take place before the circuit judge who was to deal with the fact finding hearing. That judge was unwell and so His Honour Judge Tolson KC took over the case at short notice and in a busy list.

At that hearing the father applied for the fact finding hearing to be vacated on the grounds that following the father’s admissions contained in his witness statement it was not necessary. The judge agreed. He ordered that an independent social worker (“ISW”) be instructed to prepare a report. Paragraph 7 of his order directed that the report should address the following:-

A plan for the re-establishment of direct face to face time between the children and their father;

Consideration of the evidence and father’s admissions;

The ISW must note that the court has expressly determined that a separate fact finding hearing is not necessary; and

The ISW may view past and future video recordings.

The order followed from what the judge stated was required in the last three paragraphs of his judgment namely:-

“The parties should also agree the identity of an independent social worker whose function before 3 February next year will be to report with a plan to re-establish time with the father for the children. The plan will have to take into account the father’s admissions. I think the ISW should see the video of what I am going to call the knife incident. The parties know what I am referring to.

And she should be instructed expressly on the basis:

That the court does not think a fact finding hearing is necessary,

That the court is nevertheless looking towards honesty from the parents as to what has happened in the past and as to the way forward,

That she is to make no assumptions as to what may or may not have happened in the past, but

She is to assist the court by advising on her reflections as to what happened in the past and how it sounds at present and will sound in future;

in short – and an experienced ISW can do this – just what sort of case this is. It seems to me that will inform her plan. I do think we should record that this court feels the plan will have to include contact supervised by the ISW at least in the future”.

The judge further ordered that indirect contact via video calls should start and continue at a rate of once per week. He did not consider that should be supervised, albeit the mother could monitor some of it should she wish to do so. The order provided that the calls could be recorded by either party and the recordings could be given to the ISW.

There were some differences between the views the judge expressed in his judgment and the order. Counsel told me that the judge made some amendments to the draft they submitted, for example, he amended the direction to the ISW to state that the court had concluded that a separate fact-finding hearing (as opposed to a fact finding hearing at all) was neither necessary or proportionate in the case.

The judge refused the father’s application for face to face contact including any contact that the ISW might propose, stating that this must be the subject of a future judicial decision.

The mother applied to the judge for permission to appeal his order for unsupervised video contact and for a stay, but this was refused.