Court of Appeal Upholds Child Welfare in Family Contact Dispute

Citation: [2023] EWCA Civ 1453
Judgment on


The case of LKM v. NPM ([2023] EWCA Civ 1453) in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) raises significant issues about supervised contact, parental responsibility, and the assessment and management of risk to children within the context of family court proceedings. The appeal by the father, LKM, against an order made by Williams J which set out a complex programme towards unsupervised contact with his children, is instructive in demonstrating the application of family law principles as they relate to children’s welfare and the balance of parental rights and responsibilities.

Key Facts

The appellant father was appealing a Family Court order that regulated his contact with his twin children, following a finding of fact hearing that revealed a history of emotional abuse towards the mother and children, characterized by obsessive and anxious behavior. The Court of Appeal’s decision was anchored on the father’s past conduct and his treatment compliance, with the key question revolving around the judge’s consideration of said past conduct, risk assessment, and the weight given to expert evidence in formulating his orders for contact progression.

LKM’s contact was to remain supervised until he engaged comprehensively with therapy, with the potential for escalating contact arrangements based on adherence to therapeutic sessions. Upon prognosis from the psychiatrist and psychotherapist, the contact could transition from supervised to unsupervised, involving progressively longer periods, and then onto overnight stays.

The case examines the tensions between the father’s Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects family life, and the paramountcy of children’s welfare as enshrined in the Children Act 1989.

The Court upheld the following legal principles:

  1. Children’s Welfare Paramountcy - Under the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. In the instant case, the judge’s decision was substantially informed by this principle.

  2. Risk Assessment - Risk to the children’s welfare was intricately analysed by evaluating the father’s conduct and evidence from mental health professionals. The court balanced the risk against the need for the father’s engagement in therapy, advancing the principle that a child’s welfare may entail careful, supervised progression towards a more normalized relationship with the parent.

  3. Best Interest of the Child - In line with section 1(3)‘s welfare checklist of the Children Act 1989, the Court factored the effect on the children’s emotional needs by considering the father’s behavior.

  4. Parental Responsibility and Rights - The father’s right to family life under Article 8 ECHR was considered, but not at the expense of the children’s welfare. The principle here affirms that while parental rights are vital, they can be subject to limitations and conditions where children’s welfare might be compromised.

  5. Weight of Expert Evidence - The Court accorded significant weight to expert psychiatric evidence which informed the risk assessment process. It also considered the importance of therapeutic engagement as part of the father’s pathway to unsupervised contact.

  6. Standard of Appeal - The case reinforces the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with the decision of a lower court unless it is demonstrated that the judge was wrong. The mere possibility of a different judge reaching a different decision does not suffice for an appellate court to intervene.


Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the father’s appeal, substantiating the original decision by Williams J as one within his discretion to make. The court insisted that the orders challenged were not disproportionate and were in the children’s best interest, which remains the central consideration of family law. The phased plan towards unsupervised contact was upheld on the conditions that therapeutic engagement continued.


In LKM v. NPM, the Court of Appeal illuminated the critical balance family courts must strike between the protection of children’s welfare and accomodating the rights of parents to family life. The case highlights the comprehensive analysis required in high-conflict custody situations, the significance of expert evidence in these analyses, and ultimately upholds the principle that the child’s welfare is the court’s principal concern. Curbing the father’s Article 8 rights was deemed necessary in safeguarding the children’s welfare and thus not disproportionate. This decision underscores the notion that the courts are cautious in ensuring parental contact progresses in a manner that is safe and beneficial for the children, with long-term positive outcomes as the goal.

Related Summaries