E, Z, D, V (Welfare), Re [2025] EWHC 378 (Fam) (21 February 2025)

E, Z, D, V (Welfare), Re [2025] EWHC 378 (Fam) (21 February 2025)

The court found that, although the children wished to maintain a relationship with their father, the Applicant's conduct during contact had been emotionally manipulative and destabilising, causing significant emotional harm and undermining the children's stability with their primary carer. Direct contact in Uganda would exacerbate these risks due to lack of oversight and heightened risk of abduction or retention. The best interests of the children required that direct contact be limited to England, with indirect contact structured and monitored, and that no Parental Responsibility or name change be ordered for 'V'. The court endorsed the parties' agreements and undertakings, declined to...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 378 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: A; First Respondent: R; Second Respondent: N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (welfare/final Hearing) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications granted in part; direct and indirect contact in England ordered; contact in Uganda refused at this time; Parental Responsibility and name change for 'V' refused; parties' agreements and undertakings endorsed; no Prohibited Steps Order made.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Specific Issue Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Parental Responsibility, International Child Abduction, Welfare of the Child, Contact Arrangements, Change of Name, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Orders
Family Law Child Arrangements Order Specific Issue Order Prohibited Steps Order Parental Responsibility International Child Abduction Welfare of the Child Contact Arrangements +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

R

First Respondent

N

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (welfare/final Hearing) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children should spend time with the Applicant in Uganda and/or England
  2. 2 What indirect and direct contact should take place between the Applicant and the children
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant should have Parental Responsibility for 'V'

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the children wished to maintain a relationship with their father, the Applicant's conduct during contact had been emotionally manipulative and destabilising, causing significant emotional harm and undermining the children's stability with their primary carer. Direct contact in Uganda would exacerbate these risks due to lack of oversight and heightened risk of abduction or retention. The best interests of the children required that direct contact be limited to England, with indirect contact structured and monitored, and that no Parental Responsibility or name change be ordered for 'V'. The court endorsed the parties' agreements and undertakings, declined to...

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part; direct and indirect contact in England ordered; contact in Uganda refused at this time; Parental Responsibility and name change for 'V' refused; parties' agreements and undertakings endorsed; no Prohibited Steps Order made.

Orders

  • Direct contact between all four children and the Applicant in England twice yearly (summer and Christmas/Easter holidays) for specified periods.
  • Indirect video contact between the children and the Applicant each Saturday and alternate Wednesdays (moving to weekly) at set times.