5. Indirect contact disputes (letters, cards, calls)

What is indirect contact legally?

A Child Arrangements Order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 can regulate with whom a child is to spend time or otherwise have contact and when that contact is to take place.

The statutory framework therefore allows the court to regulate a relationship without requiring the child and parent to spend ordinary face-to-face time together.

Welfare remains paramount

Indirect contact is not automatically ordered simply because direct contact is absent. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 remains the governing framework. The court considers the child's welfare, wishes and feelings, needs, risk of harm and the likely impact of the proposed arrangement.

It can perform different legal functions

Designing an indirect-contact arrangement that can actually work

A vague direction to have “indirect contact” can create fresh disputes. Where detail is needed, the order should make the practical arrangement sufficiently clear.

Do not over-engineer the order either

Some families need detailed terms because ambiguity repeatedly generates conflict. Others need only a simple framework. The no-order principle and proportionality remain relevant: the purpose is to regulate what genuinely needs regulating for the child.

Domestic abuse, safety and PD12J

Indirect contact is particularly important in cases where the court concludes that ordinary direct contact cannot safely take place.

PD12J requires the court, when considering interim arrangements in a domestic-abuse case, to consider whether indirect contact is in the child's best interests if direct contact is not appropriate. Where the court finally concludes that direct contact should not take place, paragraph 39 requires it to consider whether indirect contact is nevertheless safe and beneficial.

Indirect contact must not undermine protective orders

Where a non-molestation order, prohibited steps order, bail condition or other protective restriction is also in force, every communication route should be checked against the wording of those orders.

A Child Arrangements Order permitting particular indirect contact does not create permission to communicate by every other route.

Content itself can become a safeguarding issue

Communication may cease to be child-focused if it contains:

• criticism of the other parent or professionals;
• details of adult litigation;
• pressure on the child to change their position;
• requests to keep secrets;
• questions designed to obtain information about the other household;
• guilt, threats or emotional pressure;
• instructions to make contact outside the order;
• or material inconsistent with protective restrictions.

In an appropriate case, the court can structure the route so that material is filtered or transmitted through another person.

Content, facilitation and evidence when indirect contact is disputed

Child-focused communication usually looks very different from litigation correspondence

The purpose is the child's relationship, not winning an argument with the other parent through the child.

If you say communications are not reaching the child

Keep a proportionate record. Depending on the form of contact, that might include:

• a copy of each letter or card;
• the date it was sent;
• proof of postage where genuinely necessary;
• the date and time of attempted telephone or video contact;
• any response explaining why contact could not take place;
• and the exact wording of the order governing facilitation.

Can indirect contact progress to direct contact?

Sometimes that is precisely its purpose. Sometimes it is not.

The court should avoid assuming either that indirect contact must remain permanent or that successful letters and calls automatically justify face-to-face contact.

Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999

Re W remains an important Court of Appeal authority in this area.

The first-instance judge had rejected direct contact and ordered monthly indirect contact by cards, letters and gifts. The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal and restored a plan for the children to be made available for carefully supported direct contact.

In reviewing the authorities, the Court of Appeal repeated the longstanding principle that where direct contact cannot presently take place, indirect contact will ordinarily be highly desirable so that the child can continue to know of the absent parent's interest.

But the significance of Re W is not that indirect contact is always enough. The appeal succeeded because the court considered that reasonable avenues towards restoring the relationship had not been sufficiently pursued.

What may support progression?

• consistent compliance with the existing indirect-contact arrangement;
• child-focused and appropriate communication;
• the child's response, wishes and emotional presentation;
• evidence of meaningful insight or behavioural change where past harm is relevant;
• professional assessment of risk;
• the child's age and developmental needs;
• successful telephone or video communication where permitted;
• and a realistic staged plan rather than an abrupt transition.

What may support continuing indirect-only contact?

• ongoing risk from direct contact;
• the child's strong and independently assessed opposition to direct contact;
• lack of insight into established harmful behaviour;
• repeated boundary breaches;
• use of communication to pressure or destabilise the child;
• or a professional and judicial welfare assessment that indirect contact presently provides the safest beneficial relationship.

Key authorities, official sources and practical preparation

Questions a litigant in person should be able to answer

• What does the current sealed order actually permit?
• Does it specify letters, cards, calls, video, email, gifts or another form?
• How often is communication permitted?
• Who is required to facilitate it?
• Through what address, telephone number, platform or third party?
• Does another protective order restrict communication?
• Are communications actually reaching the child?
• If material is being withheld, what reason is given?
• Does the order permit or require screening of content?
• Is the child expected merely to receive communication, or also to be enabled or encouraged to respond?
• What are the child's current wishes and feelings?
• Is the content age-appropriate and child-focused?
• Has the frequency or form of communication become overwhelming or insufficient?
• Is indirect contact intended to be temporary, transitional or long-term?
• What would need to change before progression to direct contact could safely be considered?
• Is the existing arrangement being complied with consistently?

Primary sources and official guidance

1. Children Act 1989 — section 1 welfare framework and section 8 Child Arrangements Orders.
2. Practice Direction 12B — Child Arrangements Programme — including the definition of indirect contact.
3. Practice Direction 12J — Domestic Abuse & Harm — paragraphs 27 and 39 address indirect contact where direct contact is not appropriate.
4. Cafcass — Role in private-law proceedings — current explanation of different forms of contact and Child Arrangements Orders.
5. Cafcass — Children's family-court glossary — describes indirect contact through letters, cards and gifts where safe and beneficial.
6. HMCTS — Form C100 — current form for making, varying or discharging section 8 orders.
7. GOV.UK — Change or enforce an existing Child Arrangements Order