Background
This matter concerned a young child, (aged 4), who had lived with his mother since birth. The father issued a C100 application seeking child arrangements, including time with the child and wider parental responsibility issues. The application was supported by serious allegations of physical, emotional and psychological harm said to have been inflicted by the mother.
The mother robustly denied all allegations and asserted that the father had himself been the perpetrator of abusive and controlling behaviour during the relationship. She maintained that any restriction on contact arose from genuine welfare concerns.
The matter came before the court for a Dispute Resolution Appointment, with a Section 37 report having been directed due to the volume and seriousness of safeguarding concerns.
Relevant Law
The court was concerned with the application of section 1 of the Children Act 1989, with particular regard to the welfare checklist and the impact of alleged domestic abuse.
Practice Direction 12J was engaged given the nature of the allegations. The court was required to consider whether a fact-finding hearing was necessary to determine disputed allegations central to welfare decisions.
The Section 37 report addressed the threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 and whether public law intervention was required.
Issues
- Serious cross-allegations of domestic abuse between the parties
- Allegations of physical harm to the child
- Whether the child was at risk
- The extent to which the father should have contact
- Whether the matter required a fact-finding hearing
- Whether the threshold for care or supervision proceedings was met
Challenges
The case was factually dense, with extensive allegations and competing narratives supported by potential witnesses on both sides.
The father appeared as a litigant in person, which required careful management of the hearing and clear structuring of the issues.
There was a notable absence of concluded findings from prior investigations, and although numerous referrals had been made to social services, the Local Authority did not support care proceedings and identified no clear evidence of significant harm in the mother’s care.
The timing of the Section 37 report—filed shortly before the hearing—required rapid assimilation and tactical adjustment.
Decision
The court determined that the allegations raised were of sufficient seriousness and relevance to the child’s welfare that the matter should be transferred for judicial case management.
The case was reallocated to a District Judge for directions, including consideration of a fact-finding hearing.
This ensured that the issues would be addressed with appropriate judicial continuity and procedural rigour, particularly in light of the disputed allegations and their potential impact on any future contact arrangements.
Directions were made accordingly, with the matter listed for further case management before a District Judge. For assistance in this area of law, contact clerks@anvilchambers.co.uk