Appeal judgement in family court, or make a fresh application?

[ThisMustBeMyDream]

My partner went to court today for a contested final hearing. He already had contact week 1: weds 10am - thurs 6pm, and Fri 10am - 6pm. Week 2: Fri 10am-6pm, and sat 10am-sun 6pm. This was put in place by social services with contact building from 1 hour 3 times a week over the last year, to what he has now.

It had been recommended to increase overnights between parents. This didn't happen. Eventually my partner took it back to court. To request the overnights be added. He also wanted to have an explicit order as there was a lot of "parents to agree" to which they just couldn't.

So, today he had his contact reduced! He now has week 1: Thurs 10am - Fri 12.30pm (he can't remember if it was 12.30 or 6pm as he was in shock at what was being said, he's ringing tomorrow to clarify). Week 2 is now Fri 10am - sun 12.30pm.

Mum is to have every single Christmas eve and Christmas day. Their reason was because she has a sibling at her mum's.

My head is hurting from trying to process this, so I'm not going to go in to all the background. I do have a thread on step parents about it though.

My partner is lost. He did not expect access that was previously recommended by social services, to be stripped away. He went back because mum would not even discuss increases in overnights. Cafcass recommendation was that an explicit order was needed amongst other things. They did not recommend a reduction in contact!

What is his next step? He is self represented as his GP would only write a letter in her own words to support his legal aid claim. She wouldn't fill in the proforma that he was told it had to be on. He would otherwise be entitled to legal aid as he was subject to DV and meets the financial criteria. So he's alone in this, and really needs some guidance from here.

Sounds a bit weird re. Christmases most share even if there are other siblings.

So what reason was given for the reduction in contact?

The reason it given was that what he has now is too close to shared care. The s7 report that was made prior to contact commencing almost a year ago stated that they didn't recommend shared care at that time - and that was what they referred to "The section 7 report says no to shared care, and what you already have is too close to that". The s7 went on to say that they wouldn't be opposed to it when the relationship had built up... which it obviously has!
So they've taken the s7 from the first application, and ignored the rest of the sentence. The social worker who wrote the s7 was present at the previous final hearing where it was agreed for 3 full days with an overnight and parents to agree to increase up to the 3 overnights. It was their recommendation in the final hearing in May. It seems that now the magistrate has interpreted something incorrectly along the way.

My partner also said that in the opening discussion, one of the magistrates said the access he already had was too generous. How can someone say that to a parent?

I should add that his daughter is 2 in January. Mum and dad were a short relationship that ended during pregnancy with no animosity. Initially he was supposed to see his daughter twice a week with the times building up. Mum continously cancelled and this is how it ended up going to court as dad was not getting to see his daughter on any sort of regular basis despite best efforts. After Mediation, she stopped all contact until court; meaning 4 months with no contact. This is what I mean by contact commencing a year ago. He wasn't absent through choice.

He needs legal advice on prospects of success for an appeal - did he get a written judgment? The sequence of events makes little sense to me (I'm a family lawyer) and there's obviously a long history. Try and find someone to do a free initial advice session and then, if required, fixed fee representation. Appeals can be complex.

The issue is, he has no money to pay for advice. He is entitled to legal aid as the victim of DV and meets the financial criteria. However despite mum assaulting dad, and it going through police, where she admitted it. Because she wasn't cautioned, he can't use the police as evidence. She was put on an offenders course as restorative justice instead.

He asked his GP to complete the proforma, but the GP wrote her own letter, and refused to do the proforma. Even though he went to the GP after it happened, and it is on their records that he said he was assaulted by the mother of his child. That letter wasn't accepted by the solicitor.

He's at a loss as to how to get representation/advice.

If anyone can help on that point, it would be fantastic.