Family

Children - contact orders - domestic violence - welfare of child paramount considerationIn re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence): In re V (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence): In re M (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In re H (Children) (Contact: Domestic Violence): CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P, Thorpe and Waller LJJ): 19 June 2000

In each of the four appeals the circuit judge had refused the father's application for direct contact with the child or children involved against a background of domestic violence between the spouses or partners, and had ordered indirect contact only.

Margaret de Haas and Ruth Sutton (instructed by Jones Fitton & Co, Manchester) for the father and Ernest Ryder QC and Julia Cheetham (instructed by Masons, Manchester) for the mother in In re L.

Charles Howard QC (Spencer Gibson, Wallington) for the father and Andrew Bagchi (instructed by Crisp & Co, Guildford) for the mother in In re V.

Richard Bates (Brain Chase Coles, Basingstoke) for the father and John Ker-Reid (instructed by Costertons, Sutton) for the mother in In re M.

Ayesha Hasan (instructed by Bowling & Co) for the father and Allan Levy QC and Jane Davies (instructed by Saunders & Senior, Norwich) for the mother in In re H.

Jeremy Posnansky QC (instructed by the Official Solicitor) as amicus curiae in each case.Held, dismissing all four appeals, that in contact applications where domestic violence was alleged and established, the court should consider the past and present conduct of both parties, the effect on the children and on the residential parent, and the motivation of the parent seeking contact, trying to ensure that any risk of harm to the child was minimised and the safety of the child and the residential parent secured, always bearing in mind that the welfare of the child was the paramount consideration.