AB v CD (Child Arrangements Orders: Children over 16)

AB v CD (Child Arrangements Orders: Children over 16)

The court found that all three children have suffered significant physical and emotional abuse by the father, resulting in trauma and, for C2, PTSD. The children's clear and consistent wishes are not to have contact with their father, and there is no evidence of improper influence by the mother. The father has not demonstrated sufficient insight or acceptance of his actions and their impact. Direct or indirect contact would be harmful to the children and contrary to their welfare. Protective orders, including a Section 91(14) order, are necessary to prevent further harm and provide stability.

Parties
Applicant/father: AB; Respondent/mother: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Arrangements / Final Judgment After Welfare Hearing
Outcome
Application for contact refused; protective orders granted and varied; Section 91(14) order made.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Orders, Contact With Children, Prohibited Steps Orders, Occupation Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control
Family Law Child Protection Child Arrangements Orders Contact With Children Prohibited Steps Orders Occupation Orders Section 91(14) Orders Domestic Abuse +1 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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant/father

CD

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Arrangements / Final Judgment After Welfare Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether direct or indirect contact between the father and children is in the children's welfare interests
  2. 2 Whether to vary or discharge existing Occupation and Prohibited Steps Orders
  3. 3 Whether to make a Section 91(14) order restricting further applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all three children have suffered significant physical and emotional abuse by the father, resulting in trauma and, for C2, PTSD. The children's clear and consistent wishes are not to have contact with their father, and there is no evidence of improper influence by the mother. The father has not demonstrated sufficient insight or acceptance of his actions and their impact. Direct or indirect contact would be harmful to the children and contrary to their welfare. Protective orders, including a Section 91(14) order, are necessary to prevent further harm and provide stability.

Court Disposition

Application for contact refused; protective orders granted and varied; Section 91(14) order made.

Orders

  • No direct or indirect contact between father and C1/C2 unless initiated by the child after age 16 or with mother's support before 16, order to last until age 18.
  • No direct contact between father and C3 until age 16 unless mother supports and instigates it.