By Nicole Taylor
A new judgment highlights the deeply entrenched pro-contact culture in private family proceedings and raises questions about the use and influence of experts.
Summary of the judgment:
- The father has perpetrated serious abuse against the mother, including physical assaults, strangulation, coercive and controlling behaviour, harassment and stalking.
- The father underwent therapeutic work with a private social worker who was clear that she was not risk-assessing the father, yet the judge placed considerable weight on that evidence when deciding that the father’s risk had reduced.
- The Judge ordered gradually increasing contact with an abusive parent, which would eventually become unsupervised.
The case concerned two children, A, aged 8, and B, aged 3, whose parents had separated. The children lived with their mother and had no direct contact with their father.
The court had previously made very serious findings of domestic abuse against the father, including physical assaults, strangulation, coercive and controlling behaviour, harassment and stalking.
In July 2025, a family court found that the father:
- assaulted the mother by pushing her against a wall, then slamming her on the floor;
- assaulted the mother by pushing her in the stomach when she was 5 months pregnant
- harassed her by sending her abusive messages and stalked her, loitering around her home
- was controlling, coercive and violent throughout their relationship
- assaulted the mother by strangling her and punching her in the face
Child A had witnessed some of the abuse and had herself experienced frightening behaviour from her father.
Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, A is recognised as a victim of domestic abuse in their own right because of her father’s abuse of her mother.
The mother argued that there should be no direct contact until the father completed a Respect-accredited domestic-abuse perpetrator programme. Respect is an organisation that provides specialist training for staff delivering interventions with perpetrators of domestic abuse. Cafcass supported the mother’s position.
After the fact-finding judgment, the father undertook 31 sessions of therapeutic work with a private social worker, Ms Kaur, who is trained in the Respect model but not Respect-accredited. Ms Kaur gave evidence about what she observed during sessions with the father. She was clear that she was not risk-assessing the father. The judge nevertheless placed considerable weight on that evidence when deciding that the father’s risk had reduced and contact should progress.
We are concerned that the evidence of the independent social worker expert in this case was relied upon so heavily by the judge, especially when they were only instructed by the father.
Ms Kaur was the expert involved in another recent case reported on in our blog by barrister Eleanor Marsh, where a father was found to have perpetrated serious abuse against the mother and child and also underwent therapeutic work with Ms Kaur. The judge in that case said the father demonstrated apparent ‘insight’ into his behaviour and was therefore able to have unsupervised contact with his child, progressing to overnight, even though he pleaded not guilty to the same offences in criminal court and indicated he would argue he was acting in ‘self-defence’.
Right to Equality continues to raise concerns about the use of unregulated and regulated “experts” in family proceedings who hold pro-contact views and minimise the impact of domestic abuse. More work is needed to strengthen regulation and accountability of experts in family court.
In this case, concerning Child A and B, the judge, Recorder Hocking, accepted that the father’s historical abuse was extremely serious and that the mother had entirely understandable fears, but still ordered gradually increasing contact with an abusive parent, which would eventually become unsupervised.
Recorder Hocking said: “I see no reason why contact would not itself be an enjoyable and pleasant experience once initial fears are overcome.”
This is a clear example of how family courts minimise abuse and a serious safeguarding issue for these children. This violent man was not risk assessed. The children’s welfare was not properly considered. This father assaulted the mother by pushing her in the stomach when she was 5 months pregnant. He strangled and punched her in the face. This case raises the question: what form of domestic abuse is serious enough for family courts to accept that contact is not in the child’s best interests?
It is because of cases like these that we campaigned to repeal the presumption of parental involvement, which presumes “it is a child’s best interests to have a relationship with both their parents”, regardless of whether a parent has a history of violence. The government announced on 22 October 2025 that they would remove the presumption of parental involvement, confirming that a child’s right to safety must always outweigh a parent’s right to contact. This reform is embedded within the Courts and Tribunal Bill, which is making its way through Parliament.
Cases like these show why this reform is so desperately needed. Right to Equality will continue to campaign for this repeal until it has been formally removed from the statute books.
Published 1 September 2026