FJ v MH (no 2) (private law - welfare following fact finding)

FJ v MH (no 2) (private law - welfare following fact finding)

Direct and indirect contact with the father is not in the children's welfare interests due to findings of significant domestic abuse, emotional harm, and ongoing risks. The father has not demonstrated any change or willingness to engage. The court imposes restrictions on parental responsibility, a section 91(14) order until the youngest child is sixteen, and extends the non-molestation order until the youngest child is eighteen to protect the children and mother from further harm.

Parties
Applicant Father: FJ; Respondent Mother: MH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Orders (private Law, Welfare) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Father's application for child arrangements order dismissed; mother's application for final orders granted.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps Orders, Parental Responsibility, Section 91(14) Orders, Non Molestation Orders, Domestic Abuse, Indirect Contact, FGM Protection Orders
Family Law Child Welfare Domestic Abuse Child Arrangements Prohibited Steps Orders Parental Responsibility Section 91(14) Orders Non Molestation Orders +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FJ

Applicant Father

MH

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Orders (private Law, Welfare) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether direct or indirect contact between father and children is in the children's welfare interests
  2. 2 Whether to restrict father's parental responsibility
  3. 3 Whether to impose a section 91(14) order to filter future applications

Ratio Decidendi

Direct and indirect contact with the father is not in the children's welfare interests due to findings of significant domestic abuse, emotional harm, and ongoing risks. The father has not demonstrated any change or willingness to engage. The court imposes restrictions on parental responsibility, a section 91(14) order until the youngest child is sixteen, and extends the non-molestation order until the youngest child is eighteen to protect the children and mother from further harm.

Court Disposition

Father's application for child arrangements order dismissed; mother's application for final orders granted.

Orders

  • No direct or indirect contact between father and children ordered.
  • Mother permitted to exercise parental responsibility exclusively in day-to-day matters; specific orders clarify areas where father's consent is not required.