Sophie Kay of Coram Chambers represented the mother in the matter of Re C (A Child) (No contact) [2024] EWFC 366 (B).
This was a complex and protracted matter concerning a father’s application to have direct contact with his now aged 8-year-old son, C. The child has significant additional needs.
Sophie represented the mother throughout the proceedings, save for one occasion.
In what is a significant decision, the Family Court made unusual and rare orders for no contact, a section 91(14) order to last until the child turns 18 years of age, and entirely restricted the father’s parental responsibility. Remarkably, the court permitted the mother to make unilateral decisions in the exercise of her parental responsibility for the child.
The Father was convicted of engaging in controlling and coercive behaviour in relation to the mother and of three counts of assault by beating in relation to the mother, the subject child, C and a non-subject child, C2, along with very serious and alarming threats to kill the mother. The judgment refers to the father having held knives and swords to the mother and threatening to mutilate her face.
Importantly, the Cafcass officer updated and changed the recommendations of the original section 7 report author in the (remote) witness box, having reflected on the parties’ oral evidence and the father’s lack of insight.
On behalf of the mother, Sophie opposed the Father’s application and successfully obtained the orders sought. The mother argued that this case was one of those rare cases where it was in the child’s best interests for the court to make the unusual orders requested. The mother relied upon the ‘lawfare’ of the father’s continued abuse of her through the vehicle of the court proceedings, and that any contact would provide the father with a route to continue his abuse.
On the issue of parental responsibility, the court concluded that, “the circumstances are such that the court would not conceivably make a parental responsibility order if F did not already have parental responsibility and there is no element of the bundle of responsibilities that make up parental responsibility which F could in present or foreseeable circumstances exercise in a way that would be beneficial for C”.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the rare nature of an order for no contact, and of the important protective function of the Family Court for the most vulnerable families.
To read the full anonymised judgment, click here or see below.
