Family Court judge ‘granted father increased access to children during sexual assault investigation’

A High Court hearing was told the Family Court judge had made an ‘error in law’

General view at the High Court Rolls Building in London (Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)

A father was granted increased access to his two children despite being investigated for offences including attempted rape and sexual assault, the High Court has heard.

The man, who cannot be named, was permitted to see his children twice a week under supervision by a Family Court judge in August 2023, an increase on the previous contact.

Barristers for the children’s mother claim that the man was abusive to her during their relationship and have asked for permission to appeal against the decision.

A hearing in London on Thursday was told the Family Court judge had made an “error in law” by failing to take into account the “exceptionally serious” nature of the allegations made against the father, with the decision to increase his contact described as a “step too far”.

Elisabeth Traugott, representing the mother, told the court that the father is under investigation by police for six alleged offences including voyeurism, sexual assault, controlling and coercive behaviour and attempted rape.

She said: “These circumstances mean that there is an unmanageable risk of harm. It was an error to increase contact.

“Is it right that the court said it is only if he is convicted of these offences will it reconsider the risk of harm to the mother and the children?”

Ms Traugott said the father – who did not attend the hearing and was not represented – has denied the allegations being investigated by police and denied abusing the mother.

The barrister also told the court that the decision had put the children and their mother at risk of harm and claimed that the woman had been punished for not promoting a “positive relationship” between her children and their father, despite the fact she was an alleged domestic abuse victim.

Ms Traugott said: “There is a need for the court to recognise how difficult it is for women who are the victims of domestic abuse to promote contact between children and their abuser.

“Instead of the judge recognising that, she has turned it around and said it is an issue about her inability or lack of capacity to promote a positive relationship.

“There is a failure to appreciate the risk of harm from contact, both with the children and the mother.”

The court was told the father had made some “significant” admissions in a document.

Ms Traugott said: “He admitted that he put his hands on my client’s neck but he did not apply pressure.

“That is one of the facts that the judge could have taken into account.

“He said he was stronger than her and that she was stupid to think she could ever be stronger than him.

“He admitted that he engaged in extra-marital affairs with women from swinger sites and he lied to the mother about that.

“He admitted that because he contracted chlamydia from a prostitute, he tried to find a way to swab my client in her sleep to see if he had passed it on to her.”

She added: “It was wrong in law for the judge to give insufficient weight first of all to the admissions because they are significant, but second of all to the police investigation which is very, very serious and has been going on for many years.

“What we are saying in this case is this could be helpful, at least not to increase contact until the outcome of these criminal proceedings is known.”

Ms Traugott said the decision to increase the father’s contact with the children “overlooks the reality of someone’s lived experience of being a victim of domestic abuse”, adding that the mother was “trying to keep calm when the children are with him”.

She said: “The judge put the criminal investigation to one side. That really was a fundamental error. It is a significant set of allegations.

“They undoubtedly raise safeguarding concerns for the mother and the children, and affect the mother and her ability to promote contact.”

Mrs Justice Morgan will give her decision on whether an appeal can go ahead on Thursday afternoon.