"represents the type of difficult family case with which the circuit and district benches are wrestling day in and day out. It does not contain any point of law, and is not reportable. It is of acute importance to the parties, but of little public interest. The parties are not "personalities" or otherwise in the public domain, yet the case is an intractable contact dispute of a type which represents a major aspect of the work undertaken by the circuit and the district bench. Those who criticise the family justice system for the superficiality and "knee-jerk" nature of its judgments would do well to read what follows."
I will not recite what follows, save to say that it includes a summary of the considerable care and thoroughness with which the court has dealt with the case over a number of years, culminating in the present hearing, which concerns the mother's application for the father's committal for alleged breaches of orders and undertakings, and the paternal grandparents' application for direct contact with the children. In particular, Sir Nicholas explains that, despite what disappointed parents and their families may think to the contrary, "judges do not deprive separated parents of contact with their children lightly or for no good reason".
I wonder how widely the message will be heard?