AB v CD

AB v CD

AB poses ongoing and unmanageable risk of physical and emotional harm to EF and CD, evidenced by findings of domestic abuse, threats, litigation abuse, and lack of insight or change despite intervention. The welfare of EF demands cessation of all contact, restriction of AB's parental responsibility, extension of protective orders, and filtering of future applications. Exceptional litigation conduct justifies a costs order.

Parties
Applicant: AB; Respondent: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements (private Law) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; protective orders granted; costs order made against AB.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Parental Responsibility, Prohibited Steps Order, Specific Issue Order, Non Molestation Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Costs in Family Proceedings
Family Law Child Welfare Domestic Abuse Child Arrangements Parental Responsibility Prohibited Steps Order Specific Issue Order Non Molestation Order +2 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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements (private Law) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether direct or indirect contact between AB and EF should continue
  2. 2 Whether restrictions on AB's parental responsibility are necessary
  3. 3 Whether a section 91(14) order should be made

Ratio Decidendi

AB poses ongoing and unmanageable risk of physical and emotional harm to EF and CD, evidenced by findings of domestic abuse, threats, litigation abuse, and lack of insight or change despite intervention. The welfare of EF demands cessation of all contact, restriction of AB's parental responsibility, extension of protective orders, and filtering of future applications. Exceptional litigation conduct justifies a costs order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; protective orders granted; costs order made against AB.

Orders

  • No contact between AB and EF (direct or indirect)
  • EF to live with CD