Dr Charlotte Proudman represented a mother, a victim of rape, abuse, and coercive and controlling behaviour, in an application to the Court of Appeal to bar a staying order with overnight contact between her young daughter and the rapist father. The mother and father began a ‘sexual relationship’ when she was 15 and he was 24. This was unlawful, constituting a criminal offence. The judge determined that overnight contact was unsafe and ordered alternative contact arrangements, with further determinations to be made following an additional fact-finding at a later date.
In January 2021, M applied under the Family Law Act 1996 for protective orders. In May 2021, Recorder Sharp KC made significant findings against F, including sexual assault, involving non-consensual sexual touching while M was incapacitated, anal rape and coercive and controlling behaviour. Despite these findings, in September 2024, a final order by consent allowed Amy to live with M but provided for increasing contact with F, including overnight stays. M later asserted she was coerced into agreeing to the order but did not appeal it at the time.
M appealed a March 2025 decision by Recorder Sharp KC to maintain the overnight staying contact in the interim, pending further fact-finding. M (now represented by Dr Proudman) argued the arrangement placed Amy at risk and was inappropriate given the prior findings of rape and abuse. M alleged ongoing abuse, including psychological harm to Amy, such as emotional dysregulation, bed-wetting, and behavioural changes. F denied all allegations, claiming M’s hostility towards him “infects their relationship and her attitude towards contact.”
The appellate court acknowledged the seriousness of the 2021 FLA findings and the gravity of M’s allegations. The court held that the Recorder had erred in maintaining overnight contact without fully reassessing the risk, especially in light of the forthcoming fact-finding hearing. The court concluded that the order “tipped to the wrong side of the balancing scales” and allowed the appeal. It discharged the overnight contact arrangement and substituted it with a limited unsupervised contact schedule.
At the appeal hearing, media representatives sought to vary the transparency order to allow publication of F’s identity and employment. The court declined to vary the order at this stage, reserving the issue until after the fact-finding hearing, but allowed his position in the Armed Forces to be disclosed.
Read the judgment in full. Read media coverage of the case here (Metro, Care Appointments, and coverage of the outcome here).
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
