Your browser is out of date or unsupported. As a result, some elements of this website may not be fully functional. For the best possible user experience, it is recommended that you use the latest version of Chrome, Firefox or Microsoft Edge.
TV Edwards Solicitors Logo
Call us on: 020 3440 8000
  • About Us
    • Whitechapel Office
    • Clapham Junction Office
    • What Our Clients Say
    • Cybercrime and Fraud Warning
    • Pricing
    • Make a Secure Payment
  • Services
    • You & Your Family You & Your Family
      • Family and Children Law
      • Wills and Probate
      • Personal Injury
      • Dispute Resolution
      • Mental Health
      • Court of Protection
      • Community Care
      • Criminal Defence
    • You & Your Property You & Your Property
      • Residential Property
      • Property Disputes
      • Housing
    • You & Your Business You & Your Business
      • Commercial Property
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Business Crime and Fraud
      • Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing
    • _
  • Our People
    • Partners and Management Team
    • Family and Children
    • Property
    • Wills and Probate
    • Court of Protection
    • Criminal Defence
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Personal Injury
    • Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing
    • Mental Health
    • Community Care
    • Housing
  • News and Blogs
  • Careers
TV Edwards Solicitors Logo
  • You & Your Family
    • Family and Children Law
    • Wills and Probate
    • Personal Injury
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Mental Health
    • Court of Protection
    • Community Care
    • Criminal Defence
  • You & Your Property
    • Residential Property
    • Property Disputes
    • Housing
  • You & Your Business
    • Commercial Property
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Business Crime and Fraud
    • Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing
  • About Us
    • Whitechapel Office
    • Clapham Junction Office
    • What Our Clients Say
    • Pricing
    • Make a Secure Payment
  • Our People
    • Community Care
    • Court of Protection
    • Criminal Defence
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Family and Children
    • Housing
    • Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing
    • Mental Health
    • Partners and Management Team
    • Personal Injury
    • Wills and Probate
    • Property
    • Support Team
  • News and Blogs
  • Careers
Call us on: 020 3440 8000
×
  • Divorce
    • Divorce process
    • Finances
    • Civil partnerships
    • Child arrangements
  • Children
    • Child arrangements
    • Social services
    • Adoption
    • Special guardianship
    • Relocation
    • Abduction
  • Modern Parenting
    • Surrogacy
    • Fertility
    • Donor conception
    • Co-parenting
    • Adoption
  • Unmarried couples
    • Pre nups, post nups and pre partnership agreements
    • Cohabitation agreements
    • Separation
    • Finances for children
  • Domestic abuse
    • Domestic abuse
    • Forced marriage
    • FGM
×

Start typing to search.

    ×
    TV Edwards Solicitors Logo

    020 3440 8000

    enquiries@tvedwards.com

    Find us at Whitechapel and Clapham Junction

    Contact Us

    Please enter your first name(s).
    Please enter your surname.
    Please enter a valid email address.
    Please enter your contact number.
    Please select an option.
    Please enter a message.

    We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy.

    TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

    Who should pay the costs of the contact centre where there have been findings of domestic abuse against the person seeking contact?

    The High Court considered this recently in the case of Griffiths v Griffiths (Guidance on Contact Costs) [2022] EWHC 113...

    Who should pay the costs

    Back to News & Blogs 10th February 2022

    Blog author thumbnail
    Gemma Adams
    Blog Family

    The High Court considered this recently in the case of Griffiths v Griffiths (Guidance on Contact Costs) [2022] EWHC 113 (Fam). This was a case where the father, who has recently been identified following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Griffiths v Tickle and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1882, as Andrew Griffiths, a former conservative MP, submitted an application to the Family Court in Derby in June 2019 for a child arrangements order, seeking direct contact with the parties’ child. The mother, Kate Griffiths MP, opposed the application and raised very serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father. An order was made in July 2019 for the father to have supervised contact in a contact centre once a week and he was ordered to cover the costs of this in full. Some eight months later, contact was suspended in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the father’s contact was changed to indirect video contact. Shortly after this, the father applied for the costs of the contact centre to be met in full by the mother, once the contact centre reopened, as he was unemployed at the time, and the mother had recently been appointed as an MP. An order was made in May 2020, amending the July 2019 order so that the costs of the contact centre were to be shared equally between the mother and father. Direct contact was then reinstated in September 2020 when the contact centres opened again.

    A fact-finding hearing took place in November 2020 and findings were found about the father’s behaviour towards the mother which included rape and sexual abuse, a pattern of him controlling and behaving coercively towards her and her being physically and verbally abused by him. There were also findings that the father physically abused a relative. The father did not appeal any of these findings. Despite these findings being made, and the mother subsequently applying to suspend the father’s direct contact pending the outcome of a psychological assessment of him, the Judge ordered at a hearing in June 2021 that direct supervised contact should resume once the centre manager had completed a risk assessment of the father and that payment of the contact centre fees would remain as mentioned above, i.e. split equally between the parties.

    The mother applied for permission to appeal this order on the following 4 grounds:
    Ground 1: the Judge was wrong to order that the mother, a victim of rape, share the costs of supervised contact with her rapist, the father. This was wrong in principle, against public policy and breached the mother’s and the child’s Articles 8 and 14 rights. It is wrong in law for the family courts to interpret widely section 11(7) of the Children Act 1989 to the extent that a party is directed to pay for the costs of contact.
    Overlapping with Ground 1 was Ground 2: the law as presently interpreted by the family courts in permitting a rape victim to be ordered to pay a rapist’s contact costs was in breach of the mother’s Articles 8 and 14 Convention rights.

    Ground 3: the Judge was wrong to order direct contact and did not apply paragraph 36 of Practice Direction 12J, in failing to consider the short, medium, and long-term harm of contact on the mother and the child and the judge failed to consider at all the father’s capacity to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse as per paragraph 37(e) of PD12J.

    Ground 4: the Judge was wrong in failing to apply paragraph 40 of PD 12J and to explain by way of reference to the welfare checklist and the factors in paragraphs 36 and 37 or otherwise why she took the view that domestic abuse having been proven, contact with the perpetrator would not expose the child to the risk of harm and was beneficial for the child.

    Mrs Justice Lieven granted the mother permission to appeal the order but refused to discharge the child arrangements order pending appeal. The appeal was heard before Mrs Justice Arbuthnot (Arbuthnot J) who identified three questions relevant to the appeal:-

    1. Whether, in principle, a court has the power to order that a party pay for contact under s11(7) of the Children Act 1989;
    2. Whether the Judge was wrong to order direct contact in the particular circumstances of this case; and
    3. Whether a victim of abuse should pay the costs of contact for the abuser to have contact with the parties’ child.
      Firstly, Arbuthnot J rejected the mother’s argument that there was no power to order a party to pay the costs of contact, explaining that it is clear from section 11(7) Children Act 1989 that this section was intended for the court to have a wide discretion to enable it to give directions the court feels appropriate in respect of the costs of contact centres.
      Arbuthnot J considered that the Judge who ordered the direct contact in June 2021 did not allow herself sufficient time to determine the issue of interim contact, which was disputed by the parties, but the hearing was only listed for one hour. She determined that the hearing should have been adjourned to another day with a longer listing to allow for proper consideration of the relevant considerations arising from the application of PD12J. In particular the emotional safety of the mother, before ordering the resumption of direct contact and how the findings she had made at the fact-finding hearing influenced her decision on contact. Arbuthnot J accepted that the father had a long-standing relationship with the child via both indirect and direct contact, but given the findings made, and the failure to consider PD12J appropriately, direct contact should not have been ordered at the June 2021 hearing.
      The Judge then went on to explain that although she could not envisage a situation where a court would order the victim to share the costs of contact, she was wary of giving guidance that is “too narrow” to be applied in other extraordinary cases in the family courts. She provided guidance for the costs of contact in relation to cases where abuse has been found or admitted which is set out below:-
      • First, there must be a very strong presumption against a victim of domestic abuse paying for the contact of their child with the abuser; and

    • Second, if, wholly exceptionally, the court has to consider this, the matters a court might want to take into account could include the following:
    a. The welfare checklist including the age of the child
    b. The factors in PD12J (set out in the judgment)
    c. The nature of the abuse proved or admitted, and the parties’ conduct that the court considers relevant
    d. The impact of the abuse on the caregiver with consideration as to whether any payment would give rise to financial control
    e. The extent of the relationship between the child and the abusive party
    f. The nature of the section 8 order made
    g. The parties’ financial resources
    h. The cost of the contact
    i. Whether, if the contact is in the best interests of the child, it would take place without a sharing of the costs.
    Arbuthnot J set aside (declared invalid) the previous order for direct contact and held that this would need to be considered further once a psychological report of the father had been obtained and that relevant consideration would need to be given to PD12J. The mother was not ordered to contribute anything towards the costs of the contact centre. The Judge held that if contact is directed in the future, then the guidance as set out above would need to be applied.


    The Judgment can be found here https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/113.html

    Separately, following applications by journalists, Louise Tickle and Brian Farmer, the High Court granted permission for the fact-finding hearing to be published with the names of the father and the mother included, given that the parties are public figures. The father appealed this decision, accepting that the judgment could be published, but maintaining that he and the mother should remain anonymised. The Association of Lawyers for Children were granted permission to intervene on appeal and were represented by TV Edwards LLP.

    Should you need advice on domestic abuse or child arrangements we have a large expert team which would be happy to assist, we can be contacted on 0203 4408000 or by email A_FamilyReferrals@tvedwards.com

    Related Services:

    Domestic Violence
    Family Law

    More Articles

    Article Image

    Wilkins v Serco

    26th January 2023
    Article Image

    The top five things you need to know about deputyship

    12th January 2023
    Article Image

    Life as a trainee solicitor at TV Edwards LLP

    9th January 2023
    Article Image

    Updates to the police bail regime – how long can I be kept on police bail?

    6th January 2023
    Article Image

    When couples separate, what are the legalities around future use of their frozen embryos?

    14th December 2022
    Article Image

    How is Litigation Akin to the Game of Chess?

    14th December 2022
    All Articles 

    Contact Us

    Call: 020 3440 8000|View our Whitechapel Office|View our Clapham Junction Office

    Cyber Essentials Accreditation Logo
    Lexcel Logo
    The Legal 500 – The Clients Guide to Law Firms
    Chambers 2021 Logo

    © 2023 TV Edwards LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (465533) and is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number 0C325696. Details of the SRA Code of Conduct can be found at sra.org.uk. Registered name: TV Edwards LLP. Registered Office: 35-37 Mile End Road, London, E1 4TP.

    TV Edwards Solicitors Logo

    Contact Us

    Call us on: 020 3440 8000

    View our Whitechapel office

    View our Clapham Junction office


    • Quick Links
      • Pricing
      • Pay Online
      • Careers with TV Edwards
    • Insights
      • Blogs
    • Regulatory
      • Legal Disclaimer
      • Terms of Business
      • Accessibility
      • Privacy Policy – Website Users
      • Privacy Policy – General
      • Cookies
      • Complaints Procedure

    Find us on:


    TV Edwards Solicitors Logo
    • Divorce
    • Children
    • Modern Parenting
    • Unmarried couples
    • Domestic abuse
    © 2022 TV Edwards LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (465533) and is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number 0C325696. Details of the SRA Code of Conduct can be found at sra.org.uk. Registered name: TV Edwards LLP. Registered Office: 35-37 Mile End Road, London, E1 4TP.
    Use of Cookies

    Our website requires the use of cookies. Enabling all cookies makes sure the website works as smoothly as possible, and also helps us to improve it. Some cookies are activated by default but tracking cookies aren't switched on without your consent.

    For our full policy, visit our cookies page.


    Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences.

    Necessary

    Necessary cookies enable core functionality of the website, including security, SRA Regulationand reCAPTCHA form verifications. It is possible to disable these cookies in your browser settings, but this could affect the functionality of the website.


    Recommended
    Off On

    Recommended cookies improve your experience of our site by helping to display our latest client reviews and embedded maps of our office locations. You can find full details on Google's privacy policy here.


    Analytics
    Off On

    We'd like to use analytics services provided by Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity and Ruler Analytics to collect anonymous information from our visitors. The data we collect will help us to improve our website and services. Learn more about how we use these services and our commitment to safeguarding data in our Cookie Policy.

    Settings Save & Close