Hunters Law LLP recently acted for the mother in Father v Mother [2026] EWFC 287 (B), a child arrangements case in which the father admitted serious domestic abuse against the mother and child, including coercive and controlling behaviour. The abuse had left the mother suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While the father relied on his admissions as evidence of insight and sought unsupervised contact, the mother was concerned that the admissions were instrumental and formed part of a continuing pattern of manipulation and control. She had also been advised that she could not engage in effective treatment for her PTSD while contact continued.
Ultimately the judge took a cautious but constructive approach, and as a first-instance decision of a deputy district judge it offers a useful illustration of how the lower courts are approaching the difficult balancing act between the benefit of contact with both parents and protecting children and victim-survivors.
The background
The child, R, was a boy aged three. When he was five months old, the mother left the family home on the advice of a domestic abuse hotline and reported to the police that the father had subjected her to serious domestic abuse, including threats of violence against her and R. Early in proceedings, the father made extensive admissions, including verbal and physical abuse of the mother and R, coercive and controlling behaviour, threats of physical harm towards R, cannabis and prescription drug misuse, and dangerous driving with R in the car during episodes of road rage. The court unsurprisingly found that these amounted to domestic abuse of the mother and R. The admissions rendered a fact-finding hearing unnecessary, and the case proceeded to the welfare stage.
The parents’ positions
The mother’s position was that direct contact should stop, at least temporarily, because the ongoing proceedings and continuing contact were perpetuating her PTSD symptoms and affecting her ability to care for R. This was supported by the SJE psychiatrist Dr Ratnam and evidence from the mother’s therapist.
The father, by contrast, relied on his admissions, therapeutic work and two and a half years of successful supervised contact as evidence that unsupervised contact should now be introduced.
The legal framework
The judge applied the welfare principle and welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989, together with the statutory presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare. Given the father’s admissions, the court also considered the requirements of PD12J, including the impact of the abuse on both R and the mother, the risk of future harm, and whether any contact arrangements could be managed safely.
The judge drew on the now-familiar guidance in Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, namely that the court must consider patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour and their ongoing impact, rather than focusing solely on individual incidents. The judge also reminded himself of the limits of the parental involvement presumption in domestic abuse cases, that domestic abuse is not of itself a bar to contact, and that the question in every case is which arrangements would best promote the child’s welfare – or, failing that, which would be the least detrimental option.
The evidence
The court heard evidence from the parents and the Cafcass officer, together with extensive documentary, expert and disclosure evidence. The mother described the continuing impact of the abuse on her mental health, including severe PTSD, and remained concerned that the father’s admissions reflected strategy rather than genuine change. The father accepted that he had ‘behaved appallingly’ and, while acknowledging that his insight was ‘still evolving’, was found by the judge to be straightforward and sincere. By contrast, the Cafcass officer’s evidence was described as confused and of limited assistance, with the judge noting that a Cafcass officer’s recommendations carry no special status and the ultimate welfare decision remains the court’s alone.
The decision
The court considered options ranging from terminating direct contact to immediate unsupervised contact. The harm R would suffer from losing his established relationship with his father meant cessation of direct contact was rejected as a ‘draconian’ measure requiring exceptional circumstances. Equally, immediate progression to unsupervised contact risked undermining the mother’s recovery from PTSD and, in turn, her care of R. Nor was indefinite supervised contact considered appropriate, with the judge observing that long-term supervision is generally contrary to a child’s welfare and would not address the underlying issues.
The judge therefore adopted a ‘pathway plan’: a structured reduction and then temporary pause in direct contact to enable the mother to undertake trauma-focused therapy, followed by a gradual reintroduction and progression from supervised to supported and, ultimately, unsupervised contact. Monthly indirect contact was to continue throughout. This sought to preserve the father-son relationship without compromising R’s stability and care.
Why it is a useful case to know about
This judgment illustrates several practical points for child arrangements disputes involving domestic abuse:
- Admissions can replace a fact-finding hearing. Where a parent admits abusive conduct, the parties and court may agree there is no need for a separate hearing to determine disputed facts, but the substance of what was admitted still shapes everything that follows.
- Abuse is not an automatic bar to contact, but it changes the analysis. The courts have confirmed that domestic abuse does not automatically prevent contact, but it must be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the risk of harm.
- The impact on the victim-survivor parent matters to the child’s welfare too. Courts must weigh not only direct risk to the child but the effect of abuse on the primary carer’s capacity to parent, which affects the child.
- ‘Insight’ and genuine change are assessed critically. The court scrutinised whether the father’s admissions and completed programmes reflected authentic, durable change or merely ‘disguised compliance’, ultimately finding his wish to change genuine but his insight still developing.
- Professional recommendations including from Cafcass are important but can be departed from with good reason. The judge was required to explain any departure from Cafcass’s recommendations, which in this case were found to be unreliable.
- Courts increasingly favour structured, time-limited pathway plans over indefinite supervision or outright cessation, as this judgment’s staged reduce-pause-rebuild approach demonstrates. It is designed to give both parents room to do necessary work while preserving, as far as safely possible, the child’s relationship with both.
Although a first-instance decision, Father v Mother provides a thoughtful example of the balancing exercise required by PD12J and the welfare principle where domestic abuse has been admitted. It highlights the court’s willingness to look beyond admissions and examine the continuing impact of abuse on both the child and the victim-parent, while also remaining focused on the benefits of preserving a safe and positive parent-child relationship. Its detailed reasoning offers a realistic picture of how finely balanced welfare decisions can be when admitted abuse sits alongside evidence of a genuine and evolving, if imperfect, effort at change.
Polly Atkins, senior associate, Hunters Law LLP
