Our family lawyers have specialist expertise in complex disputes over child arrangements. Our goal is to help you achieve the best possible outcome for you and your family, which safeguards your children and prioritises their welfare.
Details of the case
Erin Lyon and Laura White represented the mother in the recently reported case of Re N (A Child) EWFC 331 (B) [2024], in which they instructed Samara Brackley of Pump Court Chambers. This was a case regarding a child (referred to as N in the anonymised judgment), who was 7 years old at the time of the final hearing. The proceedings were brought under the Children Act 1989 by the father, who represented himself as a litigant in person. The father applied for an order to regulate the contact arrangement for N, but there were safeguarding concerns regarding the father’s mental health, ability to safely parent N, and police investigations into the father’s behaviour towards the mother and subsequent ex-partners.
Despite the proceedings having been initiated by the father, the case was complicated by the father’s extensive non-compliance with court directions. The judgment records the father “consistently refused to engage and to produce the information that would reassure [the mother], the [Local Authority] and the court that such contact would be safe.” (para 49) For example, he failed to produce any witness statements (para 10), medical disclosure (para 46), evidence regarding any support obtained in respect of his mental health (para 67), or even basic information such as that his car was tax/insured/had a car seat to enable him to drive N (para 35).
As a result of the above, direct contact broke down during the proceedings, “the father having not been able to comply with the conditions for direct contact” (para 35) as did telephone contact (para 36). By the time of the final hearing, the only contact taking place were monthly cards/letters (para 39).
Children’s Services conducted the section 7 welfare report, and “The father has told others, including the s7 report author, that barriers are being put in the way of his contact with N. It is true that there are conditions imposed. They are there to ensure N’s safety and are easily removed or surmounted. The mother did not impose them; the court did. But the court also told the father what he could do in order to reassure the mother and the court about his commitment to N’s safety. He has not done any of those things or provided any of that information.” (para 73)
The judgment provides: “this mother is able and willing to promote that relationship. All that she asks is that it is safe” (para 84) however “the father lacks the insight or understanding to accept this, to put the parental issues behind him and he remains focussed inward rather than focussed on N’s needs as opposed to his own… The only person putting barriers in the way of his relationship with N is him.” (para 85)
As a result of the father’s non-compliance, the court was unable to order any progression of contact at the final hearing. The court ordered that N would live with her mother and that the father shall continue to have indirect monthly postal contact, with no progression until he addresses the safeguarding concerns and that he is able to consistently engage with postal contact. (para 88-89)
The case was heard by District Judge Gorman and the anonymised and redacted version of the judgment was uploaded to the National Archives (here), in order to help others who access the family court to understand some of the practical issues faced.
How Moore Barlow can help
Our child custody lawyers provide expert legal advice and representation for parents and guardians involved in disputes over child arrangements. At Moore Barlow, we understand that family disputes can be emotionally challenging, especially when children are involved.
