In D v E, the Family Court gave its final welfare judgment for a seven-year-old girl after findings of serious domestic abuse by her father, affecting her contact with him.
Key facts
- Who: The child C, her mother E and her father D, in proceedings following findings of domestic abuse
- From: 24 March 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: D v E (Welfare Decision following Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWFC 77 (B)
Background
In the Family Court on 24 March 2026, Recorder Reed KC gave the final welfare judgment in [2026] EWFC 77 (B), concerning a girl born in 2019. The family is anonymised: the parents appear as D (father) and E (mother), and the child as C.
An earlier fact-finding judgment, D v E (Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2025] EWFC 506 (B), found serious domestic abuse by the father, including a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. The court found that C had witnessed and been exposed to it, and that there were elements of coercion in the father-child relationship.
C has lived with her mother since shortly after the parents separated in March 2024. The father had supervised contact at a contact centre until it was suspended in January, after the Cafcass report was received.
The questions
The issues were C's contact with her father and a proposed prohibited steps order about medical information. Having regard to Practice Directions 12J and 12Q, the Recorder also raised, of the court's own motion, a possible order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. The court also had to deal with publication of both judgments.
The positions
The Cafcass officer, Ms Murray, recommended that direct contact cease until the father could evidence completion of a Respect accredited Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Programme and therapy, and could evidence underlying change. When the Recorder raised a section 91(14) order, she supported it, although she could not say for how long.
The mother accepted the Cafcass recommendations. She supported a section 91(14) order of around 20 to 24 months and did not oppose anonymised publication of both judgments.
The father had first sought equal shared care. At the hearing he no longer did so, and asked instead for a stepped progression into the community and eventually overnight contact at his home, with course work done in parallel. His counsel said he accepted the findings, although none of the position statements filed for him since the findings actually said so.
The reasoning
The Recorder agreed that the earlier findings and their shadow, together with continuing subtle behaviour recorded during contact, were more than adequate explanation for C's behaviour with her father. The Recorder agreed with Ms Murray that gifts marked with the father's and C's names in permanent marker were an indicator of concern, given the earlier evidence of a "monsters in the bed" narrative.
Ms Murray worried that the mother was still under the coercive effect of the father. The Recorder agreed that this showed the continuing effect of the controlling and critical behaviour found earlier.
Contact logs showed the father repeatedly questioning C about a plaster on her leg, and C deflecting and at times putting her hand over his mouth. The Recorder said this, and his insistence that it was normal parenting, showed that the father did not yet understand his problematic behaviour or its impact on C.
The Recorder also took judicial notice that Respect accredited courses include a 12-month wait before starting, which the advocates agreed.
What this means for the family in this case
The judgment is a decision on the facts of one child's welfare, following findings of domestic abuse. It records the evidence and the reasons the Recorder gave for agreeing with the Cafcass officer's concerns about contact.
Sources
- D v E (Welfare Decision following Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWFC 77 (B), Family Court, 24 March 2026