(Enfield Independent - Advertising Feature)

Following the case of W (Children) (2012) the Courts are toughening up their stance on contact, saying it is in the best interests of the children to see both parents.  In a move which could see parents being told to turn to counselling or therapy to deal with their attitude, (be it based on anger or anxiety), the Court of Appeal have said that the responsibility for achieving the best outcome for a child following separation/divorce lies with the parents themselves and not with the Courts or any other agency of the state.

The ruling follows a long court battle.  The mother left the family home, in 2008 taking the children with her as the father had difficulty in controlling his temper and was often verbally abusive towards the mother.   Whilst the father had contact with the children to start with, arrangements soon broke down and despite the existence of a Court Order directing weekly contact, the mother failed to comply. 

A psychologist recommended that the father undergo therapy to develop his emotional awareness and help manage his anger.  The father did this and made good progress.  The mother subsequently claimed that she was too traumatised and found it impossible to co-operate over contact. 

At first instance, the Judge agreed that the mother’s distress and anxiety was so strong that it was simply impossible for her to co-operate with contact arrangement and ordered no direct contact.  The father appealed this decision.

In his judgement, Lord Justice McFarlane said the Courts must look to two principles in deciding contact disputes.  Firstly that the welfare of the child is paramount and the Court is only concerned with the interests of the parents in so far as they have a bearing on the welfare of the child.  Secondly, it is almost always in the interest of a child to have contact with the parent with whom they are not living.   He went on to say that contact should only be denied as a last resort and only after the Judge has grappled with all the possible alternatives. The Court of Appeal found that the first trial Judge had failed to consider alternatives and should have focused on getting the mother to undergo therapy to help her co-operate with contact arrangements.

It is obvious that this is an important case because it sends out a warning to parents, that the Courts will almost always regard it as being in the child’s best interest to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.  The clear message is that parents must set aside their differences and work out ways to achieve this be it by simply backing down or undergoing therapy/counselling or mediation to help them do so.