Contact breaking down or being refused is distressing and urgent. The court’s focus is always the child’s welfare, with safety at the forefront where abuse or harm is alleged. If proceedings are issued, the Family Court follows the Child Arrangements Programme, including early safeguarding checks and directions that may include supervised or indirect contact, a Section 7 welfare report, or a fact‑finding hearing if necessary and proportionate. Children Act principles ensure decisions are child‑focused, proportionate, and timely.
“When a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child … the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.” Children Act 1989, c. 41, § 1(1) (UK).
Key points:
- Welfare paramountcy, no‑order principle, and the presumption against delay govern all decisions. Children Act 1989, c. 41, § 1(1)–(5) (UK).
- Where abuse/risk is raised, the court must manage risk, consider special measures, and only make interim contact orders that are safe and workable. Fam. Proc. R. 2010, SI 2010/2955, PD 12J (UK).
- Fact‑finding is ordered only where necessary and proportionate; patterns of coercive and controlling behavior must be evaluated, not just isolated incidents. Re H‑N (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings), EWCA Civ 448.
- Safeguarding is supported by Cafcass and, where indicated, Section 7 welfare reporting and risk assessment duties. Children Act 1989, c. 41, §§ 7, 16A (UK); Fam. Proc. R. 2010, SI 2010/2955, PD 12B (UK).
Authorities
- Children Act 1989, c. 41, §§ 1(1)–(5), 7, 8, 11A–11P, 16A (UK).
- Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, PD 12B (Child Arrangements Programme); PD 12J (Domestic Abuse and Harm); Pt. 3A & PD 3AB (Participation and cross‑examination) (UK).
- Re H‑N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings), EWCA Civ 448.
- Re C (Direct Contact: Suspension), EWCA Civ 521, 2 F.L.R. 912.
- Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence), 2 F.L.R. 334 (CA).
- Re B (Children), UKHL 35, 1 A.C. 11 (standard of proof in family findings).
When contact breaks down or is refused, the court applies the PD12J safeguarding framework: it will not generally make interim contact orders without safeguarding information, will consider supervised or indirect contact if appropriate, and will only make contact orders where the safety of the child and resident parent can be secured. [1]
Legal framework for contact breakdown/refusal (PD12J)Issue
How the court addresses contact breakdown or refusal of contact, especially where domestic abuse or harm is alleged or otherwise in issue. [1]
Rule
- Mandatory safeguarding before interim orders:
“Where the results of Cafcass … safeguarding checks are not available at the FHDRA … the court must adjourn the FHDRA until the results of safeguarding checks are available. The court must not generally make an interim child arrangements order … in the absence of safeguarding information, unless it is to protect the safety of the child, and/or safeguard the child from harm.” [1]
- Interim contact decisions must minimise risk and consider supervision or support, indirect contact, and whether contact will benefit the child: PD12J ¶27(a)–(c). [1]
- Additional safeguards where a party and child are in a refuge (PD12J ¶27B). [1]
- When domestic abuse is found or established, the welfare checklist is applied with specific reference to the abuse and any expert risk assessment; the court must consider harm suffered and risk of future harm (PD12J ¶36(1)–(2)). [1]
“The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact.” (PD12J ¶36(3)). [1]
- The court considers each parent’s conduct, motives, likely behaviour during contact, and their ability to appreciate the effect of past or potential future abuse (PD12J ¶37). [1]
- Reviews and risk thresholds: the court may set review dates; if a risk assessment concludes a parent poses a risk to the child or the other parent, supported or relative‑supervised contact is not appropriate (PD12J ¶38(d)). [1]
Application
- Where contact has broken down or is refused and PD12J applies, the court will first ensure safeguarding checks are complete and will generally adjourn if they are not, rather than make interim contact orders without that information. [1]
- If interim contact is considered, the court will actively assess supervision or supported settings, indirect contact (letters/video), and the actual benefit to the child, tailoring arrangements to minimise risk and secure safety. [1]
- Following any findings or established evidence of abuse, the court will only order contact if safety can be secured and will scrutinise parental conduct and motivations; it may timetable reviews and, where a parent is assessed as posing a risk, rule out supported or relative‑supervised contact. [1]
Conclusion
Page content should emphasise: safety‑first safeguarding, the careful approach to interim contact, and the court’s requirement that contact orders only be made if child and resident‑parent safety can be secured, with reviews and strict limits where risk is identified. [1]
References
Ministry of Justice · FPR 2010, PD12J · current
