Q v Q (No 3) [2016] EWFC 5 (28 January 2016)

Q v Q (No 3) [2016] EWFC 5 (28 January 2016)

Given the expert evidence of risk, the lack of any practical or safe mechanism for supervised or indirect contact, and the absence of professional support to facilitate such contact, the father's application for contact must be dismissed. The mother is adequately protected by existing undertakings, and the circumstances do not justify a section 91(14) order.

Citation
[2016] EWFC 5
Parties
Applicant Father: Q; Respondent Mother: Q
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
All applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Prohibited Steps Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Public Funding, Sexual Offences, Expert Evidence
Family Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Prohibited Steps Order Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Public Funding Sexual Offences Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Q

Applicant Father

Q

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant father should be granted direct or indirect contact with the child M
  2. 2 Whether a prohibited steps order should replace undertakings given by the father
  3. 3 Whether a section 91(14) order restricting future applications should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Given the expert evidence of risk, the lack of any practical or safe mechanism for supervised or indirect contact, and the absence of professional support to facilitate such contact, the father's application for contact must be dismissed. The mother is adequately protected by existing undertakings, and the circumstances do not justify a section 91(14) order.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Father's application for contact (direct and indirect) dismissed.
  • Mother's application for a prohibited steps order refused; existing undertakings remain in place.