J & K vs M & F

This case concerned an application by the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother for contact with their 6-year-old grandchild, opposed by the child's mother but supported by the father, who is serving a prison sentence.

TLDR:

• Grandparents J & K applied for contact with their grandson A.
• The application was opposed by the child's mother (M) but supported by the father (F), who is in prison.
• The court denied the application for direct contact due to the potential emotional impact on the child and mother.
• Indirect contact via letters and presents was allowed.

The applicants, J and K, sought contact with their grandson A, aged 6. The application was opposed by the child's mother (M) and supported by the father (F), who is serving a prison sentence for murder. The initial application was refused by HHJ Walker but was later remitted for reconsideration by Mr Justice MacDonald.

J and K were represented by Ms. Beth Hibbert, while M and F represented themselves. The court heard from Ms. Ali, a Family Court Advisor at Cafcass. The factual background revealed that F had a long history of serious offences, including sexual assault and murder, and was serving a lengthy prison sentence. M had also been convicted of assisting an offender.

A had regular contact with the applicants before the COVID-19 pandemic, which was positive for the child. However, contact ceased in May 2021 when F applied for contact, leading to a breakdown in trust between M and the applicants. Various legal proceedings ensued, including enforcement applications by F and contact applications by the applicants.

The court considered the evidence from all parties, including the concerns raised by M about the applicants' past behavior and their support for F. The court also reviewed the recommendations of Ms. Ali, who supported reintroducing contact between A and the applicants.

In its conclusions, the court emphasized the child's welfare as the paramount consideration. While acknowledging the potential benefits of A knowing his paternal family, the court found that the emotional impact on M and the potential distress to A outweighed these benefits. The court allowed indirect contact through letters and presents but denied direct contact.

Legal representatives: Ms. Beth Hibbert (instructed by Creighton & Partners Solicitors) for the Applicants

Judicial Panel: Mrs Justice Lieven DBE

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1156 (Fam)