Contact orders – parental contact – exercise of judge’s discretion in granting father unsupervised contact – weighing of risk factors – risk of harm

Re H (a child): CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Ward, Jacob, Rimer): 4 June 2008 A judge had made no error of law in granting a father unsupervised contact with his three-year-old daughter.

The weight to be given to competing factors of alleged risk of harm to the child and the chance that those allegations were true, against the benefit the child received from contact, had been a matter for his discretion.

The appellant mother (M) appealed against a decision granting the first respondent father (F) unsupervised contact with their three-year-old daughter (H). Following the parents’ separation, F had enjoyed telephone contact with H, and then contact supervised by the local authority and H’s paternal aunt. M had made a number of allegations against F, and a fact-finding hearing had been fixed to determine those issues.

That hearing was adjourned, and the vacated date was used to resolve the question whether F should be granted unsupervised contact with H. M opposed unsupervised contact, relying on F’s patterns of behaviour including allegations of domestic violence, sheer unpredictability of behaviour and outbursts, his drinking, his rough handling of H, and sexual fantasies manifested during their relationship. F denied those allegations. The social worker involved in the case gave evidence that H would be safe during unsupervised contact with F, and that H enjoyed the contact sessions she hadwith him.

The second respondent guardian (G) gave evidence that there was no reason why unsupervised contact should not take place. The judge took account of the evidence of the social worker and G and noted their recommendations. He summarised all the parties' submissions, including those of M, and concluded that it was in H’s best interests for F to have unsupervised contact with her, and that there was no such risk to H that supervision was necessary to protect her. M contended that the judge had erred in failing to implement the requirement that in making arrangements for contact the court had to ensure that the risk of harm to a child was minimised.

Held: In making his decision, the judge had struck a balance, having weighed up the competing factors of a risk of harm to H for the reasons alleged by M and the chance that they were well-founded, against the harmful effect on H if contact with F were to stop and against the evidence that contact was satisfactory and beneficial to H. The weight to be given to those factors was a matter for the judge in the exercise of his discretion and, while he might have been more cautious in his approach, he had made no error of law in reaching the conclusion he had to grant F unsupervised contact with H.

Appeal dismissed.

Kamala Dass for the appellant; first respondent in person; Claire Wills-Goldingham for the second respondent.