Denial of contact with father too “draconian” – Court of Appeal

26 September 2013 by

Father-and-child-holding--006M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147,  20 September 2013 – read judgement

The Court of Appeal has taken the unusual step of reversing a denial of contact order, by reviewing the question of the proportionality of the order in relation to the children’s right to family life under  Article 8.

The appellant father appealed against the refusal of his application for contact with his three young sons. He had a history of violence and previous criminal convictions all but one of which, though distant in time, related to violent behaviour, including causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Following repeated episodes of abuse, which was often witnessed by the boys, the mother had left the family home with the children and had taken up accommodation in a women’s refuge.  She voiced fears of their abduction out of the jurisdiction and her own personal safety to the extent of “honour based” violence and death at the hands or instigation of the father.  When he applied for contact Cushing J found that the father had minimised his behaviour and blamed the mother as the victim of his violence. She concluded that he had failed to show any lasting benefit from therapy and his behaviour was likely to destabilise the children’s home and security, which was provided by the mother.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Reasoning behind the decision

The judge’s assessment of the parents’ characters, past behaviour and present attitudes were entirely dependent upon finding primary fact, interpreting and drawing reasonable inference from the same.  Her conclusions were justified and unassailable on appeal. It was “exceptionally rare” for an appellate court to contemplate reversing the evaluation of an issue which depends upon primary facts. Nevertheless, there had to be careful scrutiny of the outcome reached. Her order had been draconian, and therefore disproportionate under Article 8(2) of  the European Convention of Human Rights.  The child’s rights take priority above those of his parents (see YC v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 967 at para 134:

family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to “rebuild” the family

An order denying contact could only be lawful within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the Convention if it was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the right of the mother, and consequently the minor children in her care, to grow up free from harm. In order to reach that conclusion the court must consider and discard all reasonable and available avenues which may otherwise promote the boys rights to respect for family life, including, if in the interests of promoting their welfare during minority, contact with their discredited father. In this case there had been insufficient examination of whether the risks could be sufficiently guarded against by careful and professional arrangements for setting up the contact and for close supervision during it.

The prospect of the children having any relationship with a non-resident parent was highly desirable and contact should not be denied unless the child’s welfare demanded it. Domestic violence was not in itself, a bar to direct contact, but had to be assessed in the circumstances as a whole (L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic violence), Re [2001] WLR 339). The judge had failed adequately to address why the children’s safety and the management of the mother’s anxieties could not be achieved under any circumstances of supervision.

The case was remitted to the judge for rehearing on the issue of availability of adequate resources, including accommodation and personnel, to supervise contact strictly and securely between the father and the three boys.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

2 comments


  1. carol says:

    Is it me,or the laws of fathers going mad. HOW can a father who has never put a foot wrong having been a massive part in his daughters life for over 4yrs suddenly be told by his ex partner that he is no longer aloud to be in her life, all the ex partners are using these poor children as a porn. For gods sake, WAKE UP. The strange thing is, he is aloud to foster other peoples children,what more proof does one need,that the lies his ex partner has told,are just that.

  2. truthaholics says:

    Wow – about time such draconian doctrines were overhauled across the board.
    Glad to see LJ MacFarlane’s not alone in downsizing disproportionality post-Re:B;
    A breath of fresh air!!!

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: