A High Court judge has overturned a District Court order that would have required a 14-year old girl to resume access with her father. Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the earlier hearing was so defective it amounted to a denial of justice.
The court heard the case involved a long-running dispute between the parents. The mother alleged domestic abuse and coercive control. The father denied this, though he accepted convictions for breaching a safety order in 2019 by sending threatening messages.
The child also made allegations, including that her father put his hands around her throat, which he denied.
A section 32 report under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 was completed in early 2025, when the girl was twelve. She told the assessor she found her father frightening and did not want fixed access. By the District Court hearing in October 2025, her situation had shifted: she had moved to secondary school, self harmed, voiced suicidal thoughts, begun psychotherapy, and fresh welfare concerns had emerged.
The expert told the court she had not met the child in a year and could not give a current assessment. Despite this, the District Court judge proceeded without updating the child’s views.
The High Court heard the expert was allowed to remain in court throughout, listen to all evidence, meet each parent privately during an adjournment, and then give fresh opinions based on those private conversations. She was asked what order should be made.
Mr Justice Simons said this blurred the line between witness and decision maker.
The mother did not get a proper chance to cross examine the expert. The District Court judge postponed questioning but never restored the opportunity. The expert’s new views, including describing the mother child relationship as “enmeshed”, were then used to assess the mother’s credibility and the child’s opposition to access.
The High Court also found the District Court judge had expressed conclusions too early. Before hearing all evidence, the judge told the mother she had “brought [the child] to this”, suggested custody might be transferred to the father, and warned that if access did not occur, “there will be a transfer of custody”.
Mr Justice Simons said these failings went beyond ordinary error and undermined the integrity of the process. He quashed the access order, reinstated the protection order, and directed that the case be reheard by a different District Court judge.
The new judge must decide how the child’s voice will be heard, either through a fresh expert or by speaking to the child directly.
—————————————–
PAT COYNE