Interim and Supervised Contact
Case Law Summary
The Custody Minefield Factsheets
Smartphone Series (optimised for smartphone users). Copyright Michael Robinson
2010. Crown Copyright
material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's printer for Scotland. Please bear in mind
that the courts in some circumstances will say that case law is binding, while
in other circumstances will hold that each case must be judged on its own
merits. There will also be instances where case law conflicts and the law continues to evolve. While bearing these points in mind,
referring a judge to existing case law may assist in supporting an argument to
the court.
Return to the Family
Law Menu or return to The
Custody Minefield
Re D (Contact: Interim Order) [1995] 1 FLR 495 <Back to Top>
In the case Re D (Interim Contact), and on the question of interim
contact, Lord Justice Wall set out that in cases where the principle of contact
was at issue, an interim contact order could be made if: [40]
· the observation
of contact would form part of the proceedings (typically on the advice of a
CAFCASS Officer or child psychiatrist; or
· if there was sufficient information available to the judge for
them to order contact, despite the possibility of their granting a different
order at the end of a final hearing and having heard evidence; or
· In cases where the issue in question was the amount of contact, an
order for interim contact could be made without a detailed investigation of the
evidence.
Re M (Interim Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2
FLR 377 <Back to Top>
If there is a clear
possibility that the court may order no contact at a final hearing (due to
there being serious allegations made against you that you pose a risk of harm
to the children), it is unlikely for an interim contact order to be made
without oral evidence having been heard, or there having been some
investigation by CAFCASS.
Re M (Contact: Restrictive Order: Supervision)
[1998] 1 FLR 721 <Back to Top>
'A decision to require
supervision of contact must be supported by evidence.'
On the facts of this case
it is clear to me that supervised contact would only have been appropriate if
there was the clearest and most compelling evidence that in some way S's best
interests would be jeopardised by unsupervised, normal contact. Given the terms
of the Strasbourg jurisprudence to which I have referred, it is almost as if
there is a presumption in favour of normal contact and it is for those who say
it is inappropriate to prove by clear evidence why this is so.
By Strasbourg jurisprudence,
Mostyn J refers to the European Convention on Human
Rights, and specifically, the right to family life. He goes on to say:
If one were to draw up a hierarchy of human rights protected by
the Convention I would have thought that very near to the top would be the
right of a child, while he or she is growing up, to have a meaningful
participation by both of his parents in his upbringing. Although this is
(strangely) not explicitly spelt out in the text it must be implicit in the
notion of the right to a family life.
Support - <Back to Top>
The Custody Minefield offers support forums
where you can ask our team of experienced support staff questions about family
law, the courts and separation. Collectively, we have answered more than 10,000
posts on other family law related support forums. Visit our Support Forum Page on
The Custody Minefield website to find out how to register.
Return to the Family
Law Menu or return to The
Custody Minefield