Background
The case concerned CX, a six-year-old girl whose parents separated in 2020. Earlier proceedings had established that her father, BY, subjected her mother, AZ, to extreme emotional and psychological abuse over many years. A September 2023 order provided for contact to progress gradually from supervised to supported and then unsupervised visits. CX enjoyed a loving and positive relationship with her father, and the supervised contact itself had generally gone well.
AZ and CX’s children’s guardian later sought to vary that order so that CX would have no direct or indirect contact with BY. Expert evidence established that AZ had severe complex post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the abuse and that contact-related preparation, anxiety, communication and aftermath continued to expose her to trauma. The expert considered meaningful recovery unlikely while any form of contact continued and estimated that the necessary three-stage treatment process would realistically take about three years. BY opposed ending contact but accepted that AZ needed treatment and that her recovery was necessary before contact could develop into a less restrictive relationship.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Garrido ordered the immediate cessation of contact after one final supervised meeting at which BY could say goodbye using a narrative agreed by the parents and guardian. Although ending contact would cause CX acute emotional harm and risk longer-term feelings of rejection or abandonment, the court found that AZ could help her manage that harm. Continuing any form of contact, by contrast, would prevent AZ’s recovery and create an appreciable risk that she would enter crisis and become unable to care for CX, potentially depriving the child of her primary attachment figure. The consequences would be catastrophic and unmanageable.
The court held that all realistic alternatives—including supervision, strict handover arrangements, reduced frequency and indirect contact—had been tested and could not provide the psychological safety required for treatment. No contact was therefore the only course capable of securing CX’s medium- and long-term welfare and preserving the possibility of a healthier, less restricted relationship with her father in the future.
The court also imposed a three-year restriction under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 on further applications by BY without permission. It accepted, or would impose, corresponding restrictions preventing him from entering the area where AZ lived except for work and from contacting CX’s school directly. AZ would instead provide quarterly updates about CX through her solicitor. The court declined to impose broader restrictions on parental responsibility or a reciprocal geographical restriction on AZ.
Key Takeaways
- Ending parent-child contact remains an exceptional last resort, but it may be ordered where every realistic alternative has been exhausted and continued contact would expose the child to graver, unmanageable harm.
- In applying the welfare checklist and Practice Direction 12J, the court considered the effect of domestic abuse and contact arrangements on both the child and her primary carer.
- A positive and loving parent-child relationship does not make contact determinative where maintaining it prevents the primary carer from recovering and threatens her future ability to care for the child.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the difficult welfare balance required when contact itself is positive but its surrounding effects perpetuate serious trauma caused by domestic abuse. The court expressly recognized that either available course would harm the child and selected what it regarded as the less damaging long-term option.
It also shows the evidential scrutiny required before making a no-contact order: the court relied on detailed expert evidence, considered the likely acute and chronic harm from separation, and concluded that supervised, reduced and indirect contact could not adequately mitigate the risk.