AA v BA
[2024] EWHC 2233 (Fam)
Cala and Daib, Re
4 January 2024
[2024] EWFC 1 (B)
Family Court
A dad had been accused of abusing his wife and was only allowed to see his kids indirectly. He did a course to improve himself, and the judge decided he had changed enough to see his kids regularly again. The judge didn't stop the dad from going to court again if he needed to.
Key Facts
- •Father's application for child arrangement order and specific issue determination regarding children's religion.
- •Mother opposes application, seeking only indirect contact due to concerns about father's past domestic abuse.
- •2017 fact-finding hearing found father guilty of serious domestic abuse (sexual, physical, and emotional).
- •Father completed a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Programme (DAPP).
- •Mother alleges father showed children an anti-Islamic video, leading to their alienation from him.
- •Cafcass reports raised concerns about father's behaviour and potential risk to children.
- •Late service of Cafcass report hampered proceedings.
Legal Principles
Controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships (Serious Crime Act 2015).
Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76
Definition of domestic abuse (Domestic Abuse Act 2021).
Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 1
Definition of coercive and controlling behaviour in Family Procedure Rules.
Practice Direction 12J to the Family Procedure Rules, paragraph 3
Presumption of parental involvement and high threshold for no direct contact orders.
Children and Families Act 2014, section 11; Re C (Direct Contact: Suspension) [2011] 2 FLR 912
Section 91(14) orders to prevent further applications without leave of the court.
Children Act 1989, section 91(14); section 91A
The paramountcy principle: the child's welfare is paramount.
Children Act 1989, section 1
Outcomes
Unsupervised contact between father and children reinstated.
Father's positive response to DAPP, children's wishes, and overall welfare assessment.
No non-molestation or prohibited steps order made against father.
Findings do not support the need for such orders.
Section 91(14) order refused.
Insufficient evidence that further applications would put children at risk of harm.