A judge suspended all contact between a father and his young child for three years, so that the mother could recover from complex PTSD caused by the father's earlier conduct. The father broadly admitted the facts underlying the abuse findings, so the case turned on expert psychiatric evidence rather than a fresh fact finding hearing. The judge found that although contact itself was warm and enjoyed by the child, continuing it prevented the mother's recovery, and treated termination as a last resort only after concluding all realistic alternatives had already been tried.
3 min readAll cases are fully anonymised and publicly available. Where a source link is provided, you can read the full judgment for yourself. These observational insights reflect community experiences and do not constitute legal advice.
Following an earlier fact finding hearing that found the father's conduct amounted to extreme emotional and psychological abuse of the mother, an earlier order set up a staged progression of contact, moving from supervised to unsupported time, expressly rejecting Cafcass's recommendation for two to three more years of supervision; the district judge at the time considered the father a work in progress but concluded contact should still progress. The mother and the children's guardian later applied to vary that order to no contact at all. The father broadly admitted the facts behind the incidents relied on, so no further fact finding hearing was needed. The live dispute was about his motivation and insight, not what had happened.
The court accepted psychiatric evidence from the instructed expert that the mother had complex PTSD, with recovery requiring three sequential treatment phases over a minimum of three years, contingent on removing her exposure to the father. The father had no diagnosed disorder but was found to have pervasive deficits in mentalisation, meaning his ongoing risk to the mother came through the psychological mechanism of contact and litigation itself rather than any physical risk to the child. The expert's evidence was that no protective mitigation, such as supervision, indirect contact, or reduced frequency, resolved this, because the harm to the mother came from anticipating and managing contact and processing the child's reactions afterward, not from the contact sessions themselves. Applying the section 1(2A) Children Act 1989 presumption of parental involvement (found rebutted), PD12J paragraphs 35 to 37, and the principle that termination of contact is a last resort requiring cogent reasons and exhaustion of alternatives, the judge concluded that although the child would suffer real and possibly chronic harm from a total severance (confusion, anger, rejection, abandonment), this was outweighed by the risk of the mother's psychiatric collapse as the child's primary attachment figure. He ordered contact suspended for three years, permitted one further carefully managed session at which the father would relay an agreed narrative to the child, and made a section 91(14) order for the same three year period tied to the treatment timeline, with any future application for permission routed back to him without notice to the mother.
This judgment shows that positive, warm contact will not save an arrangement if psychiatric prognosis evidence establishes that its continuation, including the anticipation and management of it, is actively frustrating the primary carer's recovery from abuse related trauma. Termination of contact remains treated as a last resort, but the court will reach it once satisfied that all realistic protective alternatives, such as supervision or reduced frequency, have already been tried and do not address the specific mechanism of harm identified by the experts. Litigants should understand that where the facts of past conduct are not disputed, contested hearings can turn almost entirely on psychiatric or psychological expert evidence about insight, mentalisation, and prognosis, rather than on further fact finding.
A McKenzie Friend supporting a parent in the mother's position could help identify early whether a case is likely to turn on expert prognosis evidence rather than contested facts, and help prepare for a hearing structured around psychiatric evidence rather than a further fact finding exercise. For a parent in the father's position, this case is a useful illustration that admitting past conduct does not resolve a case if the court finds a continuing lack of insight into its impact, and that a good contact record alone will not prevent termination if expert evidence links its continuation to ongoing harm to the other parent.
Complex post traumatic stress disorder (complex PTSD)
A mental health condition that can develop after prolonged or repeated trauma, such as sustained domestic abuse, and can involve difficulties with emotional regulation, self image and relationships beyond the symptoms of standard PTSD.
Mentalisation
The capacity to understand your own and other people's mental states, including how your actions affect someone else's feelings. A deficit in this can mean someone struggles to recognise the emotional impact of their behaviour.
Section 1(2A) presumption of parental involvement
A legal starting point that a parent's continued involvement in a child's life will benefit the child, unless the evidence shows otherwise.
Practice Direction 12J (PD12J)
Court guidance that applies whenever domestic abuse is raised in proceedings about children, setting out how the court should approach contact and welfare decisions safely.
Last resort test (termination of contact)
The principle that a court should only end a child's contact with a parent entirely when it is satisfied, with cogent reasons, that no other safeguard or alternative arrangement would work.
Section 91(14) order
A court order stopping a person from making further applications about a child without first getting the court's permission, usually for a set period.
Children's guardian
An independent professional, usually from Cafcass, appointed to represent a child's interests in certain family court proceedings.
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.