A dad was found to have abused his kids in the past. A judge ordered supervised visits, gradually increasing to unsupervised visits and overnight stays if the dad went to therapy. The dad appealed, but the higher court said the judge made a good decision, as the dad was already doing better in therapy, and it's important to look at what's best for the kids.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by father (LKM) against an order granting supervised contact with his twin children (LLA and LLN), progressing to unsupervised contact and overnight stays contingent on the father's participation in therapy.
- •Previous fact-finding hearing found the father emotionally and physically abusive towards the mother and children ([2022] EWHC 140 (Fam)).
- •Court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr. Freedman, diagnosed the father with narcissistic personality traits, impacting his functioning in intimate relationships.
- •Social worker, Ms. Sandrini, initially advocated for immediate unsupervised contact but later agreed with a phased approach contingent on therapy.
- •The father rejected the findings of fact and Dr. Oppedijk's report, claiming he had told the psychiatrist what he thought the mother wanted to hear.
- •Five months had passed since the order's issuance at the time of appeal and the father had begun therapy as directed.
Legal Principles
Best interests of the child are paramount in determining contact orders.
Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)(e)
Courts have wide discretion in devising contact orders in highly charged welfare disputes.
Case law (implied)
Expert evidence should be considered alongside all other evidence, with the judge making an overall assessment of the risks.
Case law (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's order, although potentially structured differently, was within his discretion. The phased approach, contingent on therapy, appropriately balanced the risks and the children's best interests. The father's progress in therapy since the order validated the judge's approach.