A Mother v A Father (Private Law Final Hearing) [2024] EWFC 267 (B) (19 September 2024)

A Mother v A Father (Private Law Final Hearing) [2024] EWFC 267 (B) (19 September 2024)

The court found that unsupervised contact between [Zayn] and his father or brother would cause [Zayn] significant emotional harm, outweighing the benefits of direct contact. Supervised contact is necessary for [Zayn]'s welfare. [Adam]'s application to change his surname was refused due to insufficient evidence and the risk of further harm to sibling relationships. The welfare of the children, as assessed under the Children Act 1989, required maintaining current living arrangements, limiting contact to supervised or indirect forms, and upholding the prohibited steps order regarding international travel.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 267 (B)
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
19 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Proceedings (child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps, Change of Name) / Final Judgment After Multi Year Proceedings
Outcome
Applications determined. Child arrangements and prohibited steps orders made. Name change application refused.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Change of Name, Parental Responsibility, Welfare of the Child, Supervised Contact, Indirect Contact, Sibling Contact, International Travel With Children
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Change of Name Parental Responsibility Welfare of the Child Supervised Contact +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 4 Authorities cited 1 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

Children Act 1989 Proceedings (child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps, Change of Name) / Final Judgment After Multi Year Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What contact arrangements are in the welfare interests of [Adam] and [Zayn]?
  2. 2 Should [Adam] be permitted to change his surname?
  3. 3 Should a prohibited steps order regarding international travel remain in place?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that unsupervised contact between [Zayn] and his father or brother would cause [Zayn] significant emotional harm, outweighing the benefits of direct contact. Supervised contact is necessary for [Zayn]'s welfare. [Adam]'s application to change his surname was refused due to insufficient evidence and the risk of further harm to sibling relationships. The welfare of the children, as assessed under the Children Act 1989, required maintaining current living arrangements, limiting contact to supervised or indirect forms, and upholding the prohibited steps order regarding international travel.

Court Disposition

Applications determined. Child arrangements and prohibited steps orders made. Name change application refused.

Orders

  • [Adam] to live with his father; [Zayn] to live with his mother.
  • No direct contact between [Adam] and his mother; mother to receive information about [Adam]'s education, travel, and health.