When Can Contact With a Child Be Suspended? Re CX (No 2)

The recent decision in Re CX (No 2) (Domestic abuse: No contact) [2026] EWFC 230 provides an important example of the difficult balancing exercise the Family Court may have to undertake where domestic abuse has had a profound and continuing impact on the parent with whom a child lives.

Mr Justice Garrido took the exceptional step of suspending both direct and indirect contact between a six-year-old child and her father for a period of around three years. The decision is particularly striking because the child enjoyed spending time with her father and there was no suggestion that the contact sessions themselves were causing her distress.

The background

The case followed earlier proceedings in which the court had found that the parents’ relationship had been characterised by extreme emotional and psychological abuse of the mother over a number of years.

Following those findings, the child had continued to spend time with her father under supervision. Contact had been positive and the father had engaged with a domestic abuse perpetrator programme and anger management work.

By the time of the later proceedings, however, the mother’s psychological condition had developed into complex PTSD. The evidence before the court was that the continuing arrangements for contact were themselves maintaining the mother’s trauma response and preventing meaningful recovery.

The issue was therefore not simply whether the child was safe and happy during contact. The court had to consider the wider impact of continuing contact on the child’s welfare.

What did the judge take into account?

The starting point remained the child’s welfare under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, considered alongside the requirements of Practice Direction 12J.

The judge recognised that the child, known as “CX” in the judgment, loved both parents and enjoyed her relationship with her father. However, he also found that her mother was her primary attachment figure and that her ability to provide safe and consistent care was fundamental to CX’s welfare.

The evidence suggested that continuing contact would prevent the mother from recovering from complex PTSD. If that continued indefinitely, there was a significant risk of deterioration in her ability to care for CX.

That created an unusual situation in which the risk to the child was not primarily from what happened during contact, but from the continuing consequences of the domestic abuse for her mother’s health and, consequently, her own welfare.

The judge therefore had to compare two sources of potential harm: the emotional harm CX would experience if contact stopped, against the potentially much more serious long-term consequences if her mother’s health deteriorated.

Were there any alternatives?

This was perhaps the most important aspect of the decision.

The court did not move straight from the existing contact arrangements to no contact . A number of arrangements had already been attempted, including supervised contact, supported contact, carefully managed handovers and changes to the frequency of contact.

The judge concluded that the realistic alternatives had effectively been exhausted. The evidence suggested that there was no arrangement which would both allow the mother to recover and maintain the father-daughter relationship at that time.

This meant that the court was faced with what the judgment described, in substance, as a choice between two harmful outcomes. The question was therefore not whether there was a completely harm-free option, but which course was most consistent with CX’s long-term welfare.

What Does Re CX (No 2) Mean for Child Contact Cases? 

The judgment should not be read as establishing that a parent’s mental health difficulties will ordinarily justify stopping contact. Nor does it mean that positive contact between a child and a parent should be disregarded.

Instead, the case demonstrates the importance of looking at the whole picture in domestic abuse cases.

The impact of abuse can continue long after the relationship has ended and can affect the child indirectly through the parent with whom they live. Courts will look at whether proposed arrangements are genuinely sustainable and whether they allow the victim of domestic abuse to recover.

It also reinforces the importance of evidence. Where a party argues that contact is preventing recovery from trauma, the court will need clear evidence explaining the causal connection between the arrangements, the parent’s condition and the potential impact on the child’s welfare.

Ultimately, Re CX (No 2) is a useful reminder that the Family Court’s task is not simply to preserve parental relationships wherever possible. Its task is to determine what is in the individual child’s best interests. In an exceptional case, that may mean accepting the significant short-term harm caused by the loss of contact in order to protect the child’s longer-term welfare.

If you would like advice on child arrangements or any family-related matters including divorce and finances, cohabitation agreements, separation agreements, unmarried property disputes or pre- or post-nuptial agreements, please contact the Family Department at [email protected] or on 01625 503444.

Blog written by Linzi Perriman – Associate Family Solicitor at Thorneycroft Solicitors.