Apologies in advance for a long post.
Sadly it is an imperfect world we live in and there will always be some injustice. However, many parents will be aggrieved with a judicial decision that has gone against them and are in denial, or unable to see the whole or accept the whole picture. Without knowing the other side these stories are unverifiable and little more than uncorroborated hearsay.
Children's views have to be seen in light of their age and maturity. Good parents will always ask children for their views but it is adults who make decisions. For example, you might ask your child's opinion about moving house or changing the school but it is you, the parent, who ultimately takes the decision. It is important to understand the rationale for the child?s preferences and to consider them in the light of all circumstances of the family relationships to understand how they fit into the child?s best interests.
Most children at some point will be resistant to contact, even children of intact families may reject a parent from time to time only to reconcile their feelings and change their mind later. Children may resist contact because contact is unrewarding, they witnessed DV, as a reaction to the hurt of the breakdown of the family or because of loyalty conflicts. While a child may have been telling the primary carer that they did not want to see the other parent, in fact they may be either ambivalent or actively want to, or that their concerns about about expressing their positive feelings about the parent with the minority of care can be addressed. Observed contact may show that that a child who has been, or described as being, resistant or frightened, may show no such reactions or lose their reticence quickly.
Contact isn't anything to do with parental rights. The view the courts take is that it is children's right to contact in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. Research shows that children who are insecure about their parentage and heritage tend to grow up with low self esteem leading to emotional and behavioural problems in later life such as academic under achievement, teenage pregnancy and dysfunctional relationships in adulthood. Generally most children benefit from contact with a parent even if the parent's behaviour leaves much to be desired by most people's standards. Therefore the courts are very persistent in trying to overcome a child?s resistance to contact where this is not seen to be well founded.
New measures implemented in December 2008 were in part to address the issue of NRP's not taking up contact awarded to them. Since then all contact orders with a warning notice attached are served on both parties and either party can apply for enforcement. The first line of enforcement is conditions attached to the order or directions to attend an activity such as Parenting Information Programmes, anger management or a DV programme. It is also possible for the parent with the majority of care to use contempt of court proceedings or ask the court to vary an order to reflect the reality of contact uptake. When making an order the court must ensure it is in the best interests of the child and unless there is evidence that a child is suffering emotional harm even sporadic contact is better than none.
DV itself isn't a reason for no contact. The courts consider the effect DV which has been established has on the child and the parent with whom the child is living. Other factors taken into account include whether the perpetrator of DV shows any remorse and has done anything to address the behaviour, the likely behaviour during contact of the parent seeking contact and its effect on the child, any harm the child might suffer if a contact order is made and what measures can be put in place to ensure contact is safe. Only in very exceptional cases will no contact be found to be in the best interests of the child.