A Mother v A Father

A Mother v A Father

The court found that a shared care order is not in the child's best interests due to the history of conflict, the mother's inability to promote the child's relationship with the father, and the need for stability. The child arrangements order for the child to live with the father and spend time with the mother as currently arranged is maintained. No finding of coaching by either parent was made. A section 91(14) order is justified for four years to prevent further applications by the mother without leave, as further litigation would be harmful. A prohibited steps order regarding overseas travel is not necessary; the father will hold the child's passport and must be notified of any...

Parties
Applicant: A Mother; Respondent: A Father; Guardian: Children’s Guardian (Ms V)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Child Arrangements / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for shared care order refused; child arrangements order maintained; section 91(14) order granted for four years; no prohibited steps order made; specific directions on passports and travel.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Shared Care, Section 91(14) Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Parental Responsibility, Welfare Principle
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Order Shared Care Section 91(14) Order Prohibited Steps Order Parental Responsibility 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Mother

Applicant

A Father

Respondent

Children’s Guardian (Ms V)

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Family Child Arrangements / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shared care order is in the child's best interests
  2. 2 Whether the mother coached the child to make allegations against the father
  3. 3 Whether a section 91(14) order restricting further applications is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a shared care order is not in the child's best interests due to the history of conflict, the mother's inability to promote the child's relationship with the father, and the need for stability. The child arrangements order for the child to live with the father and spend time with the mother as currently arranged is maintained. No finding of coaching by either parent was made. A section 91(14) order is justified for four years to prevent further applications by the mother without leave, as further litigation would be harmful. A prohibited steps order regarding overseas travel is not necessary; the father will hold the child's passport and must be notified of any...

Court Disposition

Application for shared care order refused; child arrangements order maintained; section 91(14) order granted for four years; no prohibited steps order made; specific directions on passports and travel.

Orders

  • Child to live with father; time with mother as per current pattern (alternate weekends, intervening Thursdays, holidays shared)
  • Mother to return child promptly after contact; penal notice attached for non-return