A barrister's view on my case

🧾 Legal Opinion: Grounds for Appeal – Final Order (27 May 2025)

Issued by the Family Court at Reading – Case No. Redacted

This legal opinion addresses the Child Arrangements Order issued by District Judge King on 27 May 2025. After careful legal analysis, it is clear that the order is procedurally flawed, legally unsustainable, and open to appeal under established case law and statutory principles.

⚖️ Summary of Legal and Procedural Defects

1. Vague and Unenforceable Contact Terms

The order provided for video contact but failed to specify dates, times, frequency, or fallback provisions. It left all arrangements “to be agreed” between the parties, despite evidence of high conflict.

⚠️ In enforcement proceedings (C79, 14 July 2025), the judge admitted:

“The order did not make any specific arrangements as to when video contact was to take place.”

Legal authorities:

• Re C (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 1102 – Orders must contain enforceable terms.
• K v D [2020] EWFC 1 – Leaving contact to be agreed is inappropriate where cooperation is poor.
• Re A (Contact: Human Rights Violations) [2021] EWFC B100 – Vague contact orders may breach Article 8 ECHR.

2. Domestic Violence Course Requirement Without Findings

The order barred the father from making future applications unless he completed a domestic abuse programme — despite no allegations being formally pleaded or tested, and no fact-finding hearing taking place.

Legal authorities:

• Re H-N & Others [2021] EWCA Civ 448 – Sanctions must not be based on untested allegations.
• K v D [2020] EWFC 1 – Fact-finding is essential when restricting parental rights.
• Articles 6 & 8 ECHR – Right to a fair trial and to family life.

See the video the court didn’t watch !

3. Safeguarding Concerns Ignored (Drug-Related)

The mother (Respondent) was arrested in January 2025 for driving under the influence of cocaine and cannabis with the children in the vehicle. The court made no mention of this incident, despite the potential for serious harm.

Legal authorities:

• Re A (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 113 – Courts must address live safeguarding concerns.
• Children Act 1989, s.47 – Court should engage with any local authority investigations.

4. Apparent Bias of Cafcass Guardian

The appointed Guardian, Jessica Newman, stated that she knew of the ARK Project — a charity publicly tied to the father’s rehabilitation after prison. She was also socially connected to people linked to his past. The court did not investigate or disclose this potential conflict of interest.

Legal authorities:

• Re D (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 315 – Even the appearance of bias requires judicial consideration.
• Article 6 ECHR – Right to an impartial hearing.

5. Failure to Investigate the Father’s Non-Attendance

Although the court noted the father’s absence at the final hearing, it made no attempt to investigate why. The father has since provided evidence that the Respondent had misled him into believing contact would resume voluntarily and the hearing was unnecessary.

Legal authorities:

• Re M (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 622 – Judges must explore reasons for non-attendance before making final orders.
• Niazi v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 755 – Parties can form legitimate expectations based on others’ representations.

6. No Safeguarding Review or Progression Plan

The order contains no mechanism for review, safeguarding oversight, or step-up to direct contact. The court failed to anticipate emerging issues, including the father’s report in July 2025 that his daughter had shared inappropriate images online. He submitted this to social services on 26 July but received no response.

Legal authorities:

• Re A (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 74 – Court orders must provide safeguards and allow for review where risk is ongoing.
• Children Act 1989, s.1(1) – The child’s welfare must remain the court’s paramount consideration.

7. The Judge Himself Confirmed the Order Was Defective

In C79 enforcement proceedings (14 July 2025), the same judge stated:

“The order did not make any specific arrangements as to when video contact was to take place.”

This confirms that the original order was unenforceable and, by extension, not in the child’s best interests.

🛠 Legal Remedy

Under Family Procedure Rules 30.3(7), the High Court may set aside or vary an order that is:

• Wrong in law,
• Procedurally unfair, or
• Unworkable in practice.

What should happen:

• Set aside the final order.
• List a new hearing before a different judge.
• Include a fact-finding hearing if allegations persist.
• Introduce a clear, staged contact plan with review in 2–3 months.
• Require disclosure from the local authority if a Section 47 enquiry took place.

✅ Final Assessment

The 27 May 2025 order fails on legal, procedural, and safeguarding grounds. It is not Article 6 or 8 compliant, nor consistent with domestic child protection case law. It must be corrected to protect both the father’s rights and the children’s welfare.