X, Re [2015] EWFC B168 (12 May 2015)

X, Re [2015] EWFC B168 (12 May 2015)

The court found that X's welfare required that he continue to live with his father, given the mother's history of mental health difficulties, lack of insight, and behaviour, including making unfounded allegations and difficulties at contact. The mother's contact should be limited, supervised, and infrequent to protect X's stability and welfare. The mother’s applications and behaviour justified a s.91(14) order to prevent further disruptive litigation. The mother’s application for a non-molestation order was not made out and was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] EWFC B168
Parties
Applicant/father: Thomas Dearman; Respondent/mother: [Redacted]; Guardian: Tracey Clarke (CAFCASS)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Father's application for residence and restricted contact granted; mother's application for residence and non-molestation order dismissed; s.91(14) order made against mother.
Legal Topics
Child Residence, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibility, Domestic Violence, Mental Health, Non Molestation Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Residence Contact Orders Parental Responsibility Domestic Violence Mental Health Non Molestation Order Section 91(14) Children Act 1989

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Dearman

Applicant/father

[Redacted]

Respondent/mother

Tracey Clarke (CAFCASS)

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether X should reside with the father or mother
  2. 2 Whether the mother should have contact with X and in what form
  3. 3 Whether a s.91(14) order should be made to restrict further applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that X's welfare required that he continue to live with his father, given the mother's history of mental health difficulties, lack of insight, and behaviour, including making unfounded allegations and difficulties at contact. The mother's contact should be limited, supervised, and infrequent to protect X's stability and welfare. The mother’s applications and behaviour justified a s.91(14) order to prevent further disruptive litigation. The mother’s application for a non-molestation order was not made out and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Father's application for residence and restricted contact granted; mother's application for residence and non-molestation order dismissed; s.91(14) order made against mother.

Orders

  • X to reside with the father.
  • Mother to have supervised contact with X six times per year at RH Contact Centre.