Court of Appeal confirms that Child Focused Court model has not altered the legal framework

As we explained here in this post, the Child Focused Court (‘CFC’) model is currently being rolled out across all family courts in England and Wales. The CFC model changes the way in which the Family Court deals with disputes between parents over arrangements for their children, by introducing a more investigative approach to such cases, and by putting the child at the centre of the proceedings.

For the first time the CFC model has come under the scrutiny of the Court of Appeal, after a mother appealed against a decision of the Wrexham Family Court, which operates the CFC model.

The decision granted the father direct, albeit supervised, contact with his children, despite the fact that there had been a history of “very serious domestic abuse” by the father, which he had admitted.

Amongst the mother’s arguments were that the judge who made the decision had dealt with the issues in the case “too summarily”, in purported adherence to the CFC model. For example, he had failed to conduct any fact-finding hearing in relation to the allegations of the father’s abuse, and had limited the length of the oral evidence.

But the President of the Family Division, giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal, did not consider that the process adopted by the judge was flawed. The judge had accepted the validity of the mother’s complaints about the father’s behaviour, the father having not in fact disputed them. It was therefore not necessary for the judge to conduct any deeper enquiry into those facts, let alone conduct a full fact-finding hearing.

As to the contact order, the President said that this was a complex case. However, the judge had firmly in mind the damaging effect of the father’s behaviour when he concluded that it would be more emotionally harmful for the children not to see their father than to see him, and had addressed the risks within the framework of his order.

Accordingly, the mother’s appeal against the contact order was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal did, however, allow the mother’s appeal in relation to one part of the order. The judge had ordered that, to protect the children from further proceedings, neither party could make any further application in relation to the children without the court’s permission, for a period of one year. However, the President said that it was wrong to equate the mother’s litigation conduct, or any contribution she may have made to the continuation of the proceedings or the abuse within the family, with that of the father. Accordingly, that part of the order should only apply to the father.

As a general observation, the President confirmed that the introduction of the CFC model has not altered the substantive legal framework. The welfare of the child remains paramount, and the obligations imposed on the Family Court where domestic abuse is alleged or established are unchanged.

You can read the full Court of Appeal judgment here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Studio Romantic / Shutterstock.com