It's quite possible that she had gone to see a solicitor about custody who will have told her right off the bat that the courts position starts from one of presumed contact unless it's in the child's best interests not to have contact (which as we know is hard to prove, it took me four years.)
Agree with the posters on here who say the family courts are allowing violent men contact (usually unsupervised) with their children.
Disagree with anyone who says that a man (or womans) reason for killing their child was because they were 'pushed' over the edge, that's a bullshit defence of a narcissistic and evil person.
I fought for four years through the courts with cafcass backing my ex who had a history of violence against our daughter, smashing up our home on contact visit at christmas, threatening to kill himself, our daughter and me because contact with the father was the 'starting' point and he's 'obviously' changed because he became a father again (a logical explaination) the cafcass woman was an evil little cow who sent the ss after us because I would not cow-tow to her whim and fancy and put our daughter in harms way.
Most mothers from violent relationships are not supported by the courts, the children are frog marched to see the abusive parent and traumatised by the numerous 'professionals' that slither through the system making money from others misery.
For this mother and child it was just a matter of timing as to when the father would strike out, court or no court the ending would probably have been the same.
Poor child. Poor mother. Another child dead because men have more rights than children.