When parents separate, one of the most difficult questions can be whether a child should continue to spend time with a parent who has previously been abusive.
Many parents assume that if domestic abuse has been admitted or proved, contact between the abusive parent and the children will automatically end. However, a recent decision from the Court of Appeal in Re C – Domestic Abuse [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 the position is often more nuanced.
The case is particularly important because it is the first appeal to consider the new Child Focused Court (CFC) model, formerly known as Pathfinder, which is being rolled out across England and Wales.
The Background
The case involved four children aged between 6 and 14 whose parents separated in 2023. The father admitted a number of incidents of domestic abuse, including controlling behaviour towards the mother, inappropriate treatment of the children and conduct after separation which caused the mother distress.
In earlier court proceedings, the father’s behaviour had already been considered and a child arrangements order was made allowing him supervised time with the children.
However, difficulties continued after that order was made. The mother argued that the arrangements had not worked and that the children should no longer have direct contact with their father. A Cafcass officer supported that position and recommended that face-to-face contact should stop.
The father disagreed and asked the court to allow contact to continue.
What Did the Court Have to Decide?
The court was not deciding whether domestic abuse had occurred. Much of that had already been accepted by the father.
Instead, the court had to decide:
- Was it still in the children’s best interests to see their father?
- Did further fact-finding about historic abuse need to take place?
- Had circumstances changed enough to justify stopping contact?
- How should the new Child Focused Court model operate where domestic abuse is an issue?
The Children’s Wishes Were Important
One of the most striking parts of the case was that all four children said they wanted a relationship with their father. One child wrote directly to the judge saying:
“I don’t mind seeing dad, I like it.”
The Court of Appeal stressed that children’s wishes are important, although they must always be considered in the context of the family’s history and any abuse they may have witnessed or experienced.
The judges recognised that domestic abuse can shape how children view relationships and family life, but they also accepted that removing a parent completely from a child’s life can itself cause harm.
Domestic Abuse Remains Highly Relevant
A key message from the judgment is that the introduction of the Child Focused Court has not weakened protections for victims of domestic abuse.
The Court of Appeal made clear that Practice Direction 12J, which governs cases involving domestic abuse, remains fully in force. Judges must still:
- Take allegations and findings of abuse seriously.
- Assess the risk of future harm.
- Consider the impact of abuse on both the child and the victim parent.
- Ensure any arrangements keep children and victims safe.
The court stressed that domestic abuse is harmful to children, even where they are not the direct victim. Children who see, hear or experience the effects of abuse are victims in their own right.
Why Did the Court Allow Contact to Continue?
Despite the history of abuse, the Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision to allow limited supervised contact.
Several factors influenced that decision:
The Abuse Was Already Known About
The father’s previous behaviour had already been considered in earlier proceedings. The court understood the seriousness of what had happened and did not minimise it.
The Contact Could Be Safely Managed
The judge concluded that the risks could be reduced through supervision, shorter contact sessions and clear restrictions on the father’s behaviour.
The Children Wanted a Relationship
The court accepted evidence that the children continued to wish to see their father and that there would be emotional consequences if that relationship ended entirely.
The Court Was Concerned About No Contact
The judges noted that the children had been prevented from seeing their father for several months and that removing a parent from a child’s life can sometimes be harmful if it is not truly necessary.
An Important Lesson About Fact-Finding Hearings
Many parents believe that every allegation of domestic abuse must be the subject of a separate trial before decisions can be made about children.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that this is not the case.
A fact-finding hearing should only take place where it is necessary to help the court make decisions about a child’s welfare and future safety. If the important facts are already known, admitted or accepted, a further hearing may not be required.
The court reminded judges to ask:
“What is this case really about?”
The purpose is not to investigate every complaint, but to determine what facts are actually needed to make safe decisions for children.
What Does This Mean for Parents?
This case is a reminder that child arrangements cases are rarely straightforward.
The family courts are not deciding whether a parent “deserves” contact. Instead, they are deciding what arrangement best promotes a child’s welfare while keeping everyone safe.
Where domestic abuse has occurred:
- The abuse must be properly recognised.
- Risks must be carefully assessed.
- The impact on children must be considered.
- The wishes and feelings of children remain important.
- Contact may continue if the court is satisfied it can take place safely.
Why This Case Matters
This case is likely to become a significant authority on the new Child Focused Court process. It confirms that while the court system is becoming less adversarial and more investigative, the fundamental principles remain unchanged: the welfare of the child is paramount, domestic abuse must be taken seriously, and every case must be decided on its own facts.
For separating parents, the key takeaway is that a history of domestic abuse will always be relevant, but it will not automatically determine the outcome. The court’s focus will remain on one central question: what arrangement is in the best interests of the child, both now and in the future?