A v B

A v B

The court found the mother's allegations of child abduction, substance abuse, and emotional harm to be untrue and that she had misled the court in her applications. The evidence showed that the father was more credible, promoted contact, and could better meet the children's emotional needs. The court determined that both children should live with the father and spend regular time with the mother, as this arrangement best protected their welfare and relationships with both parents. A prohibited steps order was not justified.

Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Orders) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for child arrangements and prohibited steps orders determined. Prohibited steps order dismissed. Child arrangements order made.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps Orders, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Fact Finding, Section 7 Report, Domestic Abuse Allegations
Family Law Child Arrangements Prohibited Steps Orders Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility Fact Finding Section 7 Report Domestic Abuse Allegations

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Orders) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children should live with the mother or father
  2. 2 Whether contact with the non-resident parent should be supervised
  3. 3 Whether a prohibited steps order is necessary to prevent removal of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the mother's allegations of child abduction, substance abuse, and emotional harm to be untrue and that she had misled the court in her applications. The evidence showed that the father was more credible, promoted contact, and could better meet the children's emotional needs. The court determined that both children should live with the father and spend regular time with the mother, as this arrangement best protected their welfare and relationships with both parents. A prohibited steps order was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for child arrangements and prohibited steps orders determined. Prohibited steps order dismissed. Child arrangements order made.

Orders

  • Both children to live with the father.
  • Children to spend time with the mother every Wednesday night and alternate weekends from Friday after school to Monday morning.