The Way You Speak to Professionals Is Evidence

A father won a path to unsupervised contact at a final hearing. On appeal, the High Court took it away and put him back to monthly supervised contact.

The historic domestic abuse findings mattered. But much of the appeal judgment turns on something he could control: how he behaved towards the people around the case after those findings were made. The emails he sent, the way he spoke to contact centre staff, and what he said about it in the witness box all became evidence of risk.

The case is a recent High Court appeal in which the father represented himself with the help of a McKenzie Friend. Details are kept general here so the family cannot be identified.

What happened

Earlier in the proceedings the court made findings of domestic abuse against the father. They included physical violence towards the mother, including while she was holding their baby, and throwing her belongings out of the house.

The court then ordered supervised contact and directed him to apply for a domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP). He attended eight of nine sessions but completed only one of six objectives. The provider closed his place because he saw himself as the victim.

Cafcass recommended that contact stay supervised until he had done that work and shown change. At the final hearing the judge disagreed. She said she had seen change in him in court: he was calmer, stood more comfortably and said he had stopped drinking. She ordered a step-by-step move to unsupervised full days in the community.

The mother appealed. The High Court allowed the appeal on all three grounds it heard, set aside the contact order and replaced it with monthly supervised contact at an accredited contact centre. Supervision can only be reviewed if the father completes an accredited DAPP.

The rules the court has to follow

When domestic abuse has been proved, the court cannot decide contact on general impressions. It has to follow Practice Direction 12J. The main steps at the final hearing are in paragraphs 35 to 40.

• Paragraph 35: any contact order must not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm, and must be in the child's best interests.
• Paragraph 36: the court goes through the welfare checklist in the light of the abuse found. It orders contact only if the child and the parent they live with can be kept physically and emotionally safe before, during and after contact.
• Paragraph 37: the court looks at both parents' conduct and five specific questions, including how the parent is likely to behave during contact and whether they understand the effect of past abuse.
• Paragraph 38: if contact goes ahead, the court decides whether it is supervised, by whom, on what conditions, for how long, and whether to review it.
• Paragraph 40: the judgment must explain how the abuse findings shaped the decision, and why the order will not expose the child to harm.

The High Court found the judge had not done this. She had critiqued the idea of assessing a parent's insight into past abuse, then assessed it herself using only how the father came across in court. She did not explain why she rejected the Cafcass recommendation. The appeal judge called this a serious procedural irregularity.

The lesson for both parents: a good impression in the courtroom is not enough on its own. The decision has to be built on the evidence, through this framework.

Why your behaviour now counts

Paragraph 37 does not only look backwards. Two of its questions are about the present:

• 37(c): is the parent motivated by the child's best interests, or using the process to continue abuse against the other parent?
• 37(d): how is the parent likely to behave during contact, and what effect will that have on the child?

The court answers those questions from what it can see. In this case that included:

• an email to the other parent's solicitor using abusive language
• swearing at contact centre staff and telling one to stay away from his family
• telling the court that aggression is a natural response to being antagonised, and that intimidating language towards professionals was appropriate
• trying to leave a contact session to get involved in an unrelated dispute outside
• an email to the mother that professionals treated as threatening

The appeal judge said this pointed to continuing aggressive and confrontational behaviour. It also mattered because the child has additional needs and sees several professionals. A parent caring for him alone needs to deal with those professionals calmly.

The father's frustration may have felt justified to him. The court did not assess whether he felt provoked. It assessed what his reaction suggested about how he would behave with his son, unsupervised, when something went wrong.

Attending a course is not the same as engaging with it

The father was punctual and turned up to almost every DAPP session. That did not help him, because the report said he stayed focused on the mother's behaviour, minimised his own and presented as the victim. The appeal judge read that outcome as showing he did not accept he had been abusive or understand its effect.

The first-instance judge had suggested DAPPs were a Cafcass invention. The High Court said that was wrong. The Children Act 1989 lets the court direct a parent to attend programmes that address violent behaviour, and PD12J paragraphs 33 and 34 cover the same ground.

The practice direction also recognises the practical problems. Paragraph 34 says providers carry out a suitability assessment before accepting anyone, and that completing a programme takes time. If you are directed to a course, what the provider writes about your engagement is likely to matter as much as your attendance.

Alienation: the questions come in a fixed order

The father said the mother was turning their son against him. The judge found the mother had not done this deliberately, but described what she said at handovers as possibly undermining the child's confidence. The High Court said she should not have made that finding.

The current approach, set out by the President of the Family Division in Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 and the Family Justice Council's December 2024 guidance, asks three questions in order:

1. Is the child actually reluctant, resisting or refusing to spend time with the parent?
2. If so, is that a justified reaction to the parent's own behaviour, or a normal attachment to the parent they live with?
3. Only if neither explains it, has the other parent behaved in a way that has caused it?

The judge skipped to the third question. She also made a finding that was never put to the mother in cross-examination. Against a background of domestic abuse findings, an alienation allegation raised early and without evidence is likely to be tested hard, and can count against the parent who raises it.

What this means if you are representing yourself

• Write every email as if the judge will read it. Emails to solicitors, Cafcass, schools and contact centres often end up in the bundle.
• Treat contact centre staff as witnesses. Their notes are evidence of how you behave during contact, which is exactly what paragraph 37(d) asks about.
• Think before defending an outburst in the witness box. Saying your reaction was justified can suggest you would react the same way again.
• Engage with any course you are directed to. The report will describe what you said and whether you reflected on your own behaviour, not just whether you attended.
• Know the framework. If there are findings of domestic abuse in your case, the court must work through PD12J paragraphs 35 to 40. You can ask it to, whichever parent you are.
• Be careful with alienation allegations. Expect the court to ask the three questions above, in that order, before it looks at the other parent's behaviour.

One more point from the judgment. The father had a McKenzie Friend and filed a skeleton argument the judge described as comprehensive and closely argued. Good support helps you present your case. It cannot change the evidence of your own conduct.

Finding support

If you are going through child arrangements proceedings without a lawyer, you do not have to do it alone. A McKenzie Friend can help you organise your papers, understand the process and prepare for hearings. You can search for independent McKenzie Friends near you in the Bridge The Gap directory at familycourtbridge.org.

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If you are unsure how any of this applies to you, speak to a solicitor or a legal advice service.