Contact After Domestic Abuse: Why Accountability Matters

In child arrangements cases, parents often focus on one question: Will I get contact?

But in cases involving domestic abuse, the court is usually asking a different and more difficult question: Is contact safe, and if not, what needs to changebefore it can become safe?

The recent decision in Re N (A Child) (Contact following findings of domestic abuse) [2026] EWFC 142 (B) is a useful reminder of how carefully the family court approaches this question.

The case concerned a father’s application to progress contact with his young daughter. There had already been findings of domestic abuse against him. The court was therefore not starting from a blank page. It had to consider whether, in light of those findings and the evidence before it, direct contact could safely resume.

What is important about this case is that the court did not treat the father’s wish for contact as enough. Nor did it treat the passage of time as proof that therisk had reduced.

In family law, time alone does not repair risk. A parent may wait months or even years before returning to court, but the real question is whether anything meaningful has changed during that time.

Has the parent accepted the findings? Has there been genuine reflection? Has there been specialist work? Has the parent demonstrated consistency, reliability, and an understanding of the child’s emotional safety?

These questions go directly to the child’s welfare.

In Re N, the court was concerned that the father continued to reject or minimise the findings made against him. That lack of insight mattered. If a parent does not accept the behaviour that caused harm, it becomes difficult for the court to feel confident that the behaviour will not be repeated or that the child will be protected from further emotional harm. This is where accountability becomes central.

Accountability is not about humiliation. It is not about punishment. It is about whether a parent can recognise the impact of their behaviour and take active steps to change. Without that, any move towards direct contact may place the child and the other parent back into an unsafe emotional environment.

The court also considered the child’s own wishes. She did not want direct contact and felt that letters, cards, and gifts were enough. Her views were not treated as the final answer, particularly because of her age. But they were part of the overall picture.

That is often how the court approaches children’s wishes. A child is heard, but not made responsible for the decision. The judge still has to weigh those wishes against welfare, risk, emotional harm, and the long-term implications of the order.

For me, the wider lesson from this case is simple but important: contact is not progressed simply because a parent asks for it. It is progressed when the court is satisfied that it is safe, child-focused, and supported by evidence.

The case also highlights the damage caused by delay. These proceedings had continued for years. In that time, the child had spent a significant part of her childhood in the shadow of litigation. That is a sobering reality. Family proceedings are sometimes necessary, but they are not neutral. Delay can shape a child’s memories, relationships, and sense of security.

The court ultimately allowed indirect contact to continue only. That outcome should not be misunderstood as the court closing the door permanently. Rather, it shows that before direct contact can be reconsidered, the parent seeking it must be able to show real change.

The protective orders made by the court are also important. A Non-Molestation Order remained necessary to prevent the father from entering the mother’s home, while a Prohibited Steps Order was made to ensure that he could not remove the child from the mother’s care. The court also made a section 91(14) barring order, meaning the father could not make further applications without the court’s permission. In practical terms, this gave space for the child and mother to feel safe, and for the father to reflect on his past behaviour before attempting to return to court. The reason these restrictions were necessary was clear: the father had not shown genuine remorse, insight, or acceptance of the findings made against him.

In cases involving domestic abuse, love for a child is not enough on its own. The court needs to see insight. It needs to see responsibility. It needs to see a practical ability to protect the child from further harm.

That is not because the court is against parental relationships.

Iti s because the child’s welfare comes first.

And where there has been domestic abuse, the path back to direct contact does not begin with denial. It begins with accountability.