H (A Child : Private law; adverse findings, restrictions on parental responsibility) (Rev1) [2021] EWFC B91 (15 December 2021)

H (A Child : Private law; adverse findings, restrictions on parental responsibility) (Rev1) [2021] EWFC B91 (15 December 2021)

Helen’s welfare required that she remain living with James, as Anya’s conduct had caused significant emotional harm and posed a risk of further harm and abduction. Professional and expert evidence was unanimous that Helen’s needs were better met in James’s care. Anya’s parental responsibility was restricted regarding medical and educational decisions, and contact was to be supervised and translated for Helen’s safety and welfare. A Section 91(14) order was justified to prevent further disruptive litigation.

Citation
[2021] EWFC B91
Parties
Applicant Father: James; 1st Respondent Mother: Anya; 2nd Respondent Child: Helen (by her Children's Guardian, AB)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Child Arrangements Order: Helen to live with James; supervised contact with Anya; restriction on Anya’s parental responsibility for medical and educational decisions; Section 91(14) order for four years; application to prevent vaccination refused; no order on church attendance.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Parental Responsibility, Prohibited Steps Order, Specific Issue Order, Section 91(14) Restrictions, Supervised Contact, Expert Evidence, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Order Parental Responsibility Prohibited Steps Order Specific Issue Order Section 91(14) Restrictions Supervised Contact +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James

Applicant Father

Anya

1st Respondent Mother

Helen (by her Children's Guardian, AB)

2nd Respondent Child

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should Helen remain living with James or return to Anya’s care?
  2. 2 What arrangements should be made for Helen to spend time with the non-resident parent?
  3. 3 Should restrictions be imposed on future court applications?

Ratio Decidendi

Helen’s welfare required that she remain living with James, as Anya’s conduct had caused significant emotional harm and posed a risk of further harm and abduction. Professional and expert evidence was unanimous that Helen’s needs were better met in James’s care. Anya’s parental responsibility was restricted regarding medical and educational decisions, and contact was to be supervised and translated for Helen’s safety and welfare. A Section 91(14) order was justified to prevent further disruptive litigation.

Court Disposition

Child Arrangements Order: Helen to live with James; supervised contact with Anya; restriction on Anya’s parental responsibility for medical and educational decisions; Section 91(14) order for four years; application to prevent vaccination refused; no order on church attendance.

Orders

  • Helen to live with James.
  • Anya to have supervised and professionally translated contact with Helen, at Anya’s expense.