NO v JL

NO v JL

The court found that the current shared residence order was unworkable and emotionally damaging to the child due to the father's persistent negative conduct towards the mother. The child's welfare required that he live with his mother and spend defined time with his father, with the Tuesday overnight contact removed. The risk of non-return to the UK if the father took the child to Turkey was real but could be mitigated by strict safeguards, including steps to be taken in Turkey and undertakings. A section 91(14) order was justified to prevent further litigation for a defined period, given the exceptional stress and harm caused to the child by ongoing proceedings.

Parties
Applicant/father: NO; Respondent/mother: JL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements (private Law) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Child to live with mother; defined contact with father; safeguards for foreign travel; section 91(14) order made.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, International Child Abduction, Parental Responsibility, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Residence Orders Contact Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 International Child Abduction Parental Responsibility +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NO

Applicant/father

JL

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements (private Law) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the child's time be apportioned between the parents?
  2. 2 Should each parent be permitted to take the child for holidays abroad, and under what safeguards?
  3. 3 Should there be an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 restricting further applications?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the current shared residence order was unworkable and emotionally damaging to the child due to the father's persistent negative conduct towards the mother. The child's welfare required that he live with his mother and spend defined time with his father, with the Tuesday overnight contact removed. The risk of non-return to the UK if the father took the child to Turkey was real but could be mitigated by strict safeguards, including steps to be taken in Turkey and undertakings. A section 91(14) order was justified to prevent further litigation for a defined period, given the exceptional stress and harm caused to the child by ongoing proceedings.

Court Disposition

Child to live with mother; defined contact with father; safeguards for foreign travel; section 91(14) order made.

Orders

  • E shall live with his mother.
  • E shall spend alternate weekends (Friday after school to Monday morning) and defined holiday periods with his father.