A Mother v A Father (Private Law Final Hearing)

A Mother v A Father (Private Law Final Hearing)

Contact between [Zayn] and [Adam] must be supervised due to the risk of emotional harm to [Zayn] from unsupervised contact. Direct contact between [Zayn] and his father is refused due to the risk of significant emotional harm. The prohibited steps order preventing the father from taking [Adam] abroad is discharged, but a prohibited steps order is made preventing the father from removing [Zayn] from his mother’s care or from the jurisdiction. The application for [Adam]'s change of name is refused as there is insufficient evidence that it would improve his welfare and concerns about documentation. No section 91(14) order is made as there is no history of repeated applications.

Parties
Applicant: A father; First Respondent: A mother; Second Respondent: [Zayn] (through his children’s guardian, LC); Third Respondent: [Adam]
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements and Related Family Law Applications / Final Judgment
Outcome
Final orders made; applications otherwise refused or dismissed as specified.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Change of Name, Children Act 1989, Welfare Principle
Family Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Change of Name Children Act 1989 Welfare Principle

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A father

Applicant

A mother

First Respondent

[Zayn] (through his children’s guardian, LC)

Second Respondent

[Adam]

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements and Related Family Law Applications / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What arrangements should be made for contact between the siblings and with the non-resident parent?
  2. 2 Should a prohibited steps order be made or continued?
  3. 3 Should permission be granted for a change of name for [Adam]?

Ratio Decidendi

Contact between [Zayn] and [Adam] must be supervised due to the risk of emotional harm to [Zayn] from unsupervised contact. Direct contact between [Zayn] and his father is refused due to the risk of significant emotional harm. The prohibited steps order preventing the father from taking [Adam] abroad is discharged, but a prohibited steps order is made preventing the father from removing [Zayn] from his mother’s care or from the jurisdiction. The application for [Adam]'s change of name is refused as there is insufficient evidence that it would improve his welfare and concerns about documentation. No section 91(14) order is made as there is no history of repeated applications.

Court Disposition

Final orders made; applications otherwise refused or dismissed as specified.

Orders

  • [Adam] to live with his father; [Zayn] to live with his mother.
  • No order for direct contact between [Adam] and his mother.