E (A Child) [2014] EWFC B136 (23 May 2014)

E (A Child) [2014] EWFC B136 (23 May 2014)

The court found that the father's conduct, including psychological pressure on the child, manipulation of evidence, and public disclosure, caused significant emotional harm to the child. The welfare of the child required indirect contact only, continuation of protective orders, and restrictions on further applications by the father. The father's admissions and concessions, though late, did not mitigate the harm already caused. The court also found failures by Dr C in safeguarding procedures and referred both the father's and Dr C's conduct to the relevant authorities.

Citation
[2014] EWFC B136
Parties
Father: Mr P; Mother: Ms S; Child: E; Paternal Grandmother: G; Guardian: Ms Sheila Jessup
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Private Family Law Child Arrangements and Ancillary Relief / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Final orders made; applications determined as set out below.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Residence Order, Contact Order, Non Molestation Injunction, Prohibited Steps Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Costs, Publication Injunction, Perverting the Course of Justice, Professional Conduct Referral
Family Law Child Arrangements Residence Order Contact Order Non Molestation Injunction Prohibited Steps Order Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Costs +3 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr P

Father

Ms S

Mother

E

Child

G

Paternal Grandmother

Ms Sheila Jessup

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Private Family Law Child Arrangements and Ancillary Relief / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a non-molestation injunction or accept the father's undertaking and for what period
  2. 2 Whether to order direct or indirect contact between father and child
  3. 3 Whether to make an order under s 91(14) Children Act 1989 restricting father's applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the father's conduct, including psychological pressure on the child, manipulation of evidence, and public disclosure, caused significant emotional harm to the child. The welfare of the child required indirect contact only, continuation of protective orders, and restrictions on further applications by the father. The father's admissions and concessions, though late, did not mitigate the harm already caused. The court also found failures by Dr C in safeguarding procedures and referred both the father's and Dr C's conduct to the relevant authorities.

Court Disposition

Final orders made; applications determined as set out below.

Orders

  • Residence order in favour of mother (now a child arrangements order)
  • Indirect contact only between father and child, facilitated by Y Contact Agency, at father's expense