N (A Child) (Contact following findings of domestic abuse), Re [2026] EWFC 142 (B)

[2026] EWFC 142 (B)

Case No ZW22P00805 / BF26F00031

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON

West London Family Court

Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,

Feltham, TW14 0LR

Date 3 June 2026

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS

Between

SApplicant

HRespondent

The applicant was a litigant in person (supported by a Mackenzie Friend) for in person

Nadia Zaman (instructed by Middlesex law Chambers) for Respondent

Hearing Hearing dates: 20 May 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]This final hearing proceeded before me on the direction of District Judge Rollason that CAFCASS should be available for examination and then submissions should be made.

[2]I have had regard to the documents contained within the hearing bundle together with the final statement of the applicant, the evidence of Ms Mark from CAFCASS and the submissions of each party.

The Issues

[3]This case concerns the parties only child, N. She is nearly 8 years of age having been born on [ ]. N lives with the applicant mother, H and there is no suggestion this should change. The real issue in the case is N’s relationship with the respondent father, S. He seeks the development of contact beyond the current indirect contact regime set down in an order of the Court from May 2023. H argues arrangements should continue unaltered and draws on the CAFCASS report in support of this conclusion. It is clear S would want the contact to develop into supervised contact and beyond that into unsupervised and broad ranging contact. His case is to have a full involvement in N’s life. Plainly the first important consideration is whether or not direct contact can be ordered.

Background

[4]It is depressing to note these proceedings have been ongoing since late 2022. It is recognised in the Children Act that delay in decision making is contrary to the welfare interests of the child. Moreover, lengthy proceedings fix parties into a constant state of litigation in which all and everything can be viewed and structured with an eye on the litigation. In reality normal life can often be held in stasis whilst litigation becomes overbearing. To the extent the Court shares responsibility for this delay N deserves an apology. As is plain from the above the parties have now been in litigation for almost half of N’s life.

[5]It appears the parties were in a relationship between around 2005 and 2018 when they separated. They have an older, now adult child, who lives with the father and has contact with N. Both parents alleged abuse from the other during the relationship. This led CAFCASS to suggest the need for a fact-finding hearing which was agreed by the Court. It is this feature of the case which has principally driven the delay in the proceedings although it is not entirely easy to work out the reason for this. An overview of the proceedings includes:• 4.11.22 A Recorder noted domestic abuse was an issue and sought further information adjourning the matter to a further hearing

• 19.5.23 A DJ directed schedules of allegation, medical and police disclosure and listed a further hearing to consider whether fact finding was required

• 30.8.23 A DJ heard the case when it was restored due to non-compliance. The timetable was extended and a further hearing fixed

• 25.10.23 The Court approved a fact-finding hearing and gave further directions towards a PTR and Fact-Finding

• 30.5.24 The matter was listed and it appeared no directions had been complied with and no hearing fixed. Hearings were fixed

• Oct 2024 The listed Fact-Finding hearing in February 2025 was vacated and relisted for May 2025

• 5.12.24 A DJ held a PTR on the case. Substantial further directions were required due to non-compliance with existing directions. The fact-finding hearing was maintained

• 27.1.25 A DJ held a further PTR with further police disclosure ordered

• 28.4.25 A DDJ held a further PTR. Police disclosure was outstanding. The Fact-Finding was vacated and relisted to September 2025

• 10.9.25 An effective Fact-Finding hearing was held with findings made as per a schedule attached to the hearing order. A DRA was listed

• 24.2.26 The DRA did not resolve the proceedings and this final hearing was fixed.

[6]Stepping back I can see that this final hearing, even allowing for a fact-finding and DRA should have been capable of conclusion before the end of 2023. That we are now nearly 3 years on is a function of delays in listing combined with widescale non-compliance with the Court timetable. This is an unacceptable state of affairs and a wholly wasteful use of Court resources with 12 hearings (including the final hearing) when at most only 5 should have been required if there had been full compliance (First Hearing; Directions for FFH; Fact-Finding Hearing; Dispute Resolution Appointment; Final hearing).

[7]I complete the procedural history by noting the respondent applied for a non-molestation order against the applicant on 24 February 2026 following receiving a safeguard disclosure from Ms Mark. This matter was issued at the Family Court at Brentford and is linked to this case

Findings made by Judge

[8]The Judge found the H had been verbally abusive to S but for the most part in response to abuse from him or in the context of a mutual argument. The Judge was satisfied the parents had a fight in the presence of N in 2020. The Judge made clear these were not findings of domestic abuse.

[9]The Judge found S on one occasion threw a mug at H; that he chased her through the house with a wine bottle; he slapped her a number of times in the presence of N when she was a baby; and on at least one occasion he threatened H with a knife in the presence of N. The Judge accepted the S had accepted a caution for assaulting H in 2014.

[10]Whilst the Judge did not find sexual assault as alleged the Judge did find S had sent abusive messages with sexual content in the context of jealousy at perceived infidelity. He found S had verbally abused H in the presence of N.

[11]Finally, the Judge found coercive and controlling behaviour on the part of S towards H. The findings indicate H felt it necessary to remove herself from the home for periods due to abusive behaviour; that S was threatening towards H and her family on numerous occasions; that S set times for H to return home and was angry if she did not comply; that after the relationship ceased he demanded to know what she was doing and accused of sexual infidelity in an abusive fashion with H having to send photos proving she was at work to deal with this; that he told her to stop contacting their older child, and; that he was abusive and belittling towards her.

The Judge completed their schedule with the following general observations:

[12]There is sufficient evidence to prove domestic abuse directed by the father towards mother as described above. There is sufficient evidence to prove that took place in the home and there was both physical and verbal abuse in front of both children, and that this was impacting the children e.g. N repeating the swear word used by her father when abusing her mother as shown on the video. The limited extent to which I have found the allegations proved against the mother do not amount to domestic abuse by mother against father, but I do find that there were occasions where mutual fighting and argument, for which both parents must accept some responsibility, took place in front of the children.

[13]I consider the terms of the order dated 24 February 2026 deserve reference. This was a Dispute Resolution Hearing and the Judge was entitled to identify the real issues and narrow, indeed determine points where possible. Within those recitals the following points are noted:• The Judge determined a range of specific issues which are no longer before the Court.

• The Judge made a final order that N live with H.

• The Judge made it clear to S that he would likely need to re-engage with indirect contact if he was looking for contact to develop. It appears indirect contact had by that point ceased for a period of several months.

• The Judge focused on the relevance of the findings of domestic abuse and the reliance upon the same by CAFCASS. The Judge signalled the importance of S accepting the findings and engaging with domestic abuse work.

• The Judge signalled the potential for a s91(14) Order to be made by the Court at final hearing.

The Evidence

[14]I heard from Ms Mark for CAFCASS. In her report Ms Mark noted good engagement with school although N has some inter-personal issues and is working below age expectations. Earlier reports had suggested she was withdrawn in presentation. She is reported to have Special Educational Needs and has been referred to CAMHS

[15]Ms Mark noted the history of allegations with S reporting arguments arose with respect to H’s alleged infidelity and alcohol use. H confirmed stopping contact in 2021 due to the ongoing abuse she was suffering.

[16]The indirect contact was referenced with N confirming receipt of cards although this has not been consistent. S confirmed having not sent anything since October 2025 and by the date of final hearing this was a period in excess of 6 months. Some gifts are said to pass via the older sibling who continues to see N.

[17]The local authority had been involved with the family between 2007 and 2022 due to issues around domestic abuse and N was placed on a Child in Need plan in 2021 (now closed).

[18]Ms Mark set out her appropriate investigations including speaking to both parents and N. I have read the age-appropriate conversation with N. She plainly views her mother, stepfather and wider maternal family as her key relationships. She was seen to have a warm relationship with H and referenced her relationship with her older brother.

[19]When probed with respect to her father she had limited memories which is unsurprising given she has not seen him for most of her life. She reported that ‘he kept coming back, I heard shouting’ but could not give further information. S talked about N’s presence during arguments as follows:

“[N] would shout and point her fingers, she never cried, she would be dancing and shouting, mimicking the behaviours, H is loud, so [N] would shout”

. H commented:

“[N] does not like to be alone, I think her nervousness at times, her anxiety and quietness is due to domestic abuse happening when she was a baby…”. 20. N repeating the swear word used by her father when abusing her mother as shown on the video”

. This leads Ms Mark to conclude that whereas N may not remember her own emotions during moments of abusive behaviour this does not diminish her experience of the impact of her witnessing the same.

[20]N was asked about seeing S. She responded negatively to this suggestion and when asked about this commented that she ‘did not want to see him’ and that ‘she already got cards and gifts.’ In an introductory letter when asked if anything worried her she mentioned her father coming to her home. Ms Mark notes the last contact between S and N was itself a worrying incident of abuse in the family home.

[21]H informs she has received a diagnosis of complex PTSD and has accessed various support from related domestic abuse agencies. She has completed the Freedom Programme and obtained non-molestation orders. Although some of the allegations ‘did not have evidence’ she felt relieved she had been believed. H did not want things to change as she felt this would not be safe for N. She noted on the last occasion of contact there had been an abusive incident.

[22]S was spoken to about the findings. He found them upsetting as they were not in context. He was not in agreement with the findings which were lies. He described H as a narcissist who was controlling and ‘cried wolf’. S explained he wanted to spend time with N including weekends and holidays and further explained this is what N wanted as passed on through the older sibling. He reported a level of mental health impact as a result of not seeing her.

[23]Ms Mark set out her recommendations in respect of which the findings of the Court formed a factual matrix. Ms Mark considered these to be high risk factors and this was compounded by the absence of insight and acceptance on the part of S which placed N at continuing risk of experiencing further domestic abuse. Ms Mark had regard to N’s resilience in the light of her personal characteristics and was concerned as to the likely impact on her of experiencing further abusive behaviours.

[24]Ms Mark noted the current indirect contact is inconsistent and observed there has been no direct contact since 2021. Ms Mark assessed whether contact could be moved forward successfully and safely. She recognised such contact could have important benefits for N including with regard to her identity needs but also noted concerns including a lack of remorse on the part of S and acceptance of the findings. She also reflected on the child’s stated wishes. She concluded: The priority in this case is the safety and wellbeing of N, who is a vulnerable child with additional needs. It is essential to ensure that she is not exposed to any future risk of domestic abuse. The safety of her mother must also be considered, as well as the risk of undermining her parenting, given the Findings of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. I remain concerned that, despite these Findings, [S] has referred to [H] as “crying wolf,” “a narcissist,” and “controlling.” Such comments suggest that he does not acknowledge the impact of his behaviour or accept the Findings, which raises further concerns regarding insight, accountability, and the potential for future harm. While the court could make an Order for N to spend time with [S] directly, it is my professional opinion, that considering her vulnerabilities, her experience of witnessing domestic abuse and her wishes and feelings, to force her to do so is likely to create an emotionally harmful situation and add to her anxieties. Furthermore, considering the case history it is unlikely that [H] and [S] would be able to develop a safe co-parenting relationship. Therefore, I do not consider it to be in N’s best interest to spend time with her father beyond indirect spending time as her emotional wellbeing needs to be a priority. It is my recommendation that indirect spending time should be continued as previously set out in the Order of 19th May 2023, with letters, cards and small gifts being sent to N. [S] would need to demonstrate his consistency and his commitment to N with indirect spending time.

[25]Ms Mark doubted S would be eligible for a domestic abuse programme at this time due to his position. She considered at a minimum he should engage with the Freedom Programme to develop insight which might improve his journey into more meaningful work. She felt evidence of progress would be a pre-condition to direct spending time arrangements: Should [S] in the future, fully accept the Findings and be able to evidence meaningful acknowledgment, responsibility, and sustained behavioural change and his ability to protect N from any future emotional harm, he could then make a further application to the court and be in a position to provide evidence of his completion of a Respect Accredit DAPP.

[26]S was not prepared to examine the CAFCASS Officer. I took her through the various points raised by him within his final statement. This did not cause her to change her recommendations or her assessment of risk. H agreed with the recommendations in the report. Counsel for H raised a concern as to how S had reacted when told about the recommendations. Ms Mark told me he became emotional, somewhat aggressive and spoke over her to the point where she had to end the call. Concerningly, he told her that no one could stop him seeing his daughter and he would go to her house if necessary. Following this conversation which troubled Ms Mark she rightly informed H on the basis this raised safeguarding issues. It was following this conversation that H applied for a non-molestation protection. I share Ms Marks’s concern and whilst I understand the issues in this case do raise natural emotions for both parties it is troubling S could not contain himself and made threats to act unilaterally.

Legal Principles

[27]N’s welfare is paramount. I will examine her welfare through the welfare checklist. There is a presumption that she will benefit from a relationship with both parents, although the format of the relationship is not prescribed and this presumption can be rebutted where appropriate.

[28]The Court having made findings of domestic abuse I must assess any proposed contact arrangements through the prism of the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 12J §§35-37: 35 When deciding the issue of child arrangements, the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child. 36(1) In the light of- (a) any findings of fact, (b) admissions; or (c) domestic abuse having otherwise been established, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained.

(2) In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm- (a) which the child as a victim of domestic abuse, and the parent with whom the child is living, has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse; and (b) which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made.

(3) The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied- (a) that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact; and (b) that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent. 37 In every case where a finding or admission of domestic abuse is made, or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider – (a) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living; (b) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child’s relationship with the parents; (c) whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent; (d) the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and (e) the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.

[29]I am asked to make a section 91(14) order preventing further applications without permission of the Court. Such orders are now a standard part of the armoury of the Court when considering cases involving domestic abuse. They require justification given their impact on access to justice but are now more freely considered following amendment to s91(14) in the light of the domestic violence provisions.

Analysis

[30]I hold the following concerns. The Court has made significant findings of domestic abuse against S yet he has neither accepted the findings nor shown any appropriate insight into how his behaviour will have impacted on H or N. Moreover, he continues to blame H and considers the findings are wrong and based on lies and that she was ‘crying wolf.’

[31]Domestic abuse is a serious finding to be made. Where it has occurred the likely impact on a child who has experienced it, directly or indirectly, is often understated. Many children carry the impact of such experiences even when they are unable to link their feelings to the incidents themselves. In this case N was present and was a witness to serious abusive behaviour. There is a likelihood this shapes her feelings at this time. There is some evidence it has.

[32]In addition, H has been found to be a victim of such behaviour. She is entitled to protection from the Court and should not be placed into a position of having to facilitate contact with her abuser if to do so would cause her harm, including emotional harm.

[33]It is well recognised that those who act abusively can change but that such patterns of behaviour can be deeply embedded and for many individuals change is difficult. It is often a necessary component of change for the perpetrator to show insight in acknowledging their behaviour and the impact it has had. With insight and reflection comes responsibility for behaviour and with responsibility for behaviour comes a foundation for change.

[34]In this case S is sadly not at the first stage and continues to both deny his own actions and blame H for the state of affairs. This is a poor foundation for change and positive contact. There is a danger that further abuse and or impact on H and N may arise if contact develops without change. Furthermore, it will likely require H to engage with S in circumstances in which she knows his mindset has not changed. I have heard about her diagnosis of CPTSD as a result of her experience and I need to be mindful of the potential for her to suffer real emotional harm if contact is poorly managed with a consequent real-world impact on N.

[35]I am also concerned as to the failure to maintain indirect contact. I note the District Judge’s encouragement in February 2026 but this did not lead to a change in approach. There is evidence that N was receiving the letters and it seems little thought has been given to how it must seem to her for these to end.

[36]I have not been able to place weight on the reported views of the older sibling as to what N is said to have told him. There are obvious reasons why he might provide his father with an account that favours his father’s position, indeed there are obvious reasons why N might find herself caught in a situation and may well have said what is suggested to have been said out of a sense of pressure or expectation. It really does not help me.

[37]These considerations are all relevant to the welfare analysis (as set out above). Welfare analysis

[38]I bear in mind N’s stated wish not to have contact beyond indirect contact although I place limited weight on this given her age and likely limited understanding as to the significance of the decision. That I place some weight upon this reflects the evidence which indicates she continues to be impacted by the abuse she experienced and as such her stated wishes have a reasonable context as was observed by Ms Mark. I keep in mind PD12J and the relevance of wishes, of even young children, where these have been formed in circumstances of domestic abuse in part or full.

[39]I have regard to her needs, which are those of all children of her age, for consistency and stability. I have particular regard to her need for a home free of abuse and/or disruption. She cannot afford for events to play out in the manner they did previously. She is entitled to a home environment which feels and is safe. In addition, she has a need for a primary caregiver who remains emotionally available and is not themselves impacted by abusive behaviours. It would be contrary to N’s interests for her mother’s emotional wellbeing to be impaired as a result of having to manage a relationship with someone found to have abused her.

[40]I have regard to her characteristics including her age and some limited educational challenges including her additional needs. I bear in mind she is preserving a relationship with her brother notwithstanding the estrangement from her father. I find it difficult to believe this does not in some way bring her father into her life. I have regard to the inconsistent letter writing and the impact this will have had on her. N has a complex identity made up of varying cultural components. It would benefit her to have a good knowledge of her full background.

[41]I consider a change in circumstances for her in this case will be as to direct contact with her father. My concern is that this will bring instability into her life at this time and runs the risk of reintroducing a level of domestic abuse. This flows from the continuing attitude that S has towards the Court’s findings, his sense of loss of relationship with his daughter and the clear blame he places on H for all of this. This has the obvious potential to lead to arguments and dispute and out of these for there to be further domestic abuse. S needs to gain insight and understanding as to what he has done, what this means for his ex-partner and daughter and how he can make changes to himself to allow future contact to be safe. I am satisfied this would best be achieved by an appropriate domestic abuse course. I agree this may not be available until such time as S as acknowledged his behaviour. It would be wrong to say that just because he does not do so that contact must move on irrespective of the same. This would be to suggest the whole process of fact-finding was without purpose or relevance. That is not the case. The findings will remain relevant into the future until some change is made by S.

[42]The risk of harm is that which flows from the above. I do not find these proceedings are motivated by a wish to continue abuse. I accept S wishes to have a relationship with his daughter. My concern is that absent change any disagreement, which is predictable may lead to heightened emotions and abuse. There is already a level of heightened emotions as evidenced by Ms Mark. I do not consider this will disappear and I find it is likely to be a feature surrounding contact. I consider it would be wrong in principle to require H to accept this risk just because S is unable to accept the findings of the Court and work to change himself.

[43]There is no evidence to suggest H is not providing good care to N. The issue is as to whether S can do so on a sustained basis without slipping back into problematic behaviour patterns. Absent this it is likely he can meet N’s needs during contact as he has been doing for her older brother.

[44]In considering the range of orders I need reflect on the proportionality of my decision. The heart of the assessment above is the need for reflection and change on the part of S in the context of a background in which he domestically abused H with direct and indirect impact on N. There is no reason to believe any of this was done to harm N or with that intention. However, the vast majority of the abuse was acted out in her presence and this suggests an inability to prioritise her needs over his own needs in the moment.

[45]The benefits of potential contact in allowing a relationship to develop and fostering her full identity is therefore balanced by the risks associated with the same. It is important to remind myself that much of the progress the case demands can be seen to be in the hands of S alone.

Conclusion

[46]I agree with Ms Mark and have decided contact should continue as it is currently ordered on an indirect basis. I have reached this conclusion because I do not think any progression at this time would be safe for N or H. I remain concerned that contact would descend into disagreement and dispute and out of this would likely arise elements of the domestic abuse previously found to exist by the Court.

[47]To return to this after years of relative peace would be highly destabilising and would be contrary to N’s welfare interests. On balance I consider this protection is more important than the positives that would arise out of contact.

[48]I am clear the answer to this problem is for S to make changes. In the interim he needs to show consistency via letter writing. Without both of these it is difficult to foresee circumstances in which contact will develop.

[49]I intend to make a s91(14) order for a period of 2 years until 31 May 2028. This is geared towards creating a period out of litigation. It is not geared towards punishing S. It is a period which should enable S to reflect and engage and complete an appropriate course. The order will relate to S and cover all section 8 orders. I cannot set any conditions on future applications but they will require a material change to be shown and I suspect the key change the Court will look to find is in relation to acceptance of the findings and engagement with domestic abuse work as suggested by Ms Mark.

[50]In the light of S’s conversation with Ms Mark, I also consider it appropriate to make a non-molestation order and a related prohibited steps order (both to last until 31 May 2028). These orders will prevent S from taking any steps to remove N from either H’s care or the care of any institution into whose custody she has been placed (i.e. a school). The non-molestation will prevent S entering the road in which H lives with N.

[51]I will now send this judgment to the parties together with a draft of the proposed orders. I intend to hand this judgment down electronically on 3 June 2026 at 10am. The hearing will not be attended. If there are any corrections to this judgment or requests for clarification then they should be sent to me no later than 4pm on 2 June 2026. Given this judgment may be published I would welcome any suggested redactions to the judgment (other than the names of the parties which will be redacted in any event to preserve anonymity) by the same date. I will accept FAS details for insertion into the order by the same date.

[52]I would ask those acting for the mother to forward a copy of this judgment to Ms Mark with my thanks. His Honour Judge Willans