Marie represents a father who had retained the children after contact because of welfare concerns. He was acting as a litigant in person until very recently, after a year of proceedings. The court had ordered the children to go back to the mother, and although the mother was not objecting to contact continuing, Cafcass did object based on historic domestic abuse allegations, which pre-date the 3 years of the father having contact since separation, sometimes for long periods of weeks. This matter is due to be heard soon as a final hearing, but it seems to Marie that there was no justifiable reason to stop the father’s contact for 1 year and not even allow supervised contact as a direct result of the Cafcass recommendations. She will be arguing that there was no reason to refuse the father contact, this was based on a flawed analysis, was a disproportionate response to the circumstances and amounted to a breach of the father’s article 8 rights (which must only be interfered with if ‘necessary and proportionate’.
Final hearing pending