The High Court has rejected an appeal by a grandfather and a step-grandmother for contact with their six-year-old grandson.

It held that granting contact could prove too damaging to the mother and the child, referred to in proceedings as A.

The court heard evidence that by the time the child was born, the father had been convicted of murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison. He had a long list of convictions, including sexual assault of a child under 13 years old.

Until the onset of the Covid pandemic in March 2020, A had regular overnight contact with the grandparents (approximately every fortnight), when the mother was working on a Saturday night.

All parties agree that this was a positive time for A who had a close and loving relationship with the grandparents and with other paternal family members.

This contact stopped with Covid lockdown, then restarted in the summer of 2020.

The mother stopped contact with the grandparents in May 2021 and it has not resumed since.

She told the court that she stopped contact because she was so concerned about what the grandparents had said in their statements in support of the father’s separate application for contact and her overall concerns about their behaviour in respect of the father and herself.

The court heard evidence that the father’s probation officer had written to Cafcass to advise he was concerned that the father and grandfather had been discussing ways they could fraudulently provide evidence to the court that there was an established relationship between the grandfather and the child through fake cards/letters being sent.

The grandfather denied this.

The mother said visiting his father in prison had been confusing for A and that the grandfather should consider the boy’s needs and withdraw the application.

She believed he should “show commitment by sending cards or short letters etc for a period”.

She added: “This would allow [A] to get a more detailed understanding and not feel so confused like he is feeling now. He has already been forced to visit the prison, something which he was extremely anxious to do, to now be forced to spend time with people he hasn’t seen for almost four years is unrealistic.”

Mrs Justice Lieven said that in making her decision she had to focus on A’s best interests. Any upset and unhappiness to the mother caused by allowing direct contact would undoubtedly then affect A.

“Weighing all these factors up together, I take the view that the impact on the mother and, through her, on A, clearly outweighs any benefits to A from contact.”

She added that the mother “should be given a break of at least three years before she has to face any more applications” for contact by the grandparents.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

Source:

Between J & K
High Court Family Division
May 2024
Mrs Justice Lieven