F v M & Ors [2023] EWFC 172 (B) (11 October 2023)

F v M & Ors [2023] EWFC 172 (B) (11 October 2023)

F poses a real risk of direct and indirect harm to M and the children due to ongoing coercive and controlling behaviour, failure to engage with recommended therapy and DAPP course, and persistent unfounded allegations. The only safe arrangement is for the children to live with M and have supervised monthly contact...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 172 (B)
Parties
Applicant: F; First Respondent: M; Second and Third Respondents: A & B (acting through their Children’s Guardian, Ruth Alexander)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings (child Arrangements and Related Orders) / Final Welfare Hearing Following Fact Finding
Outcome
Applications granted in substantial part for M and the Guardian; F’s applications for unsupervised/indirect contact and to avoid restrictions refused.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Parental Responsibility, Non Molestation Order, Section 91 A/91(14) Barring Order, Coercive and Controlling Behaviour, Supervised Contact, Domestic Abuse, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Parental Responsibility Non Molestation Order Section 91 A/91(14) Barring Order Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Supervised Contact +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

M

First Respondent

A & B (acting through their Children’s Guardian, Ruth Alexander)

Second and Third Respondents

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings (child Arrangements and Related Orders) / Final Welfare Hearing Following Fact Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children should live with M and what contact, if any, should occur with F
  2. 2 Whether F's parental responsibility should be restricted
  3. 3 Whether a section 91A/91(14) order barring further applications by F is justified

Ratio Decidendi

F poses a real risk of direct and indirect harm to M and the children due to ongoing coercive and controlling behaviour, failure to engage with recommended therapy and DAPP course, and persistent unfounded allegations. The only safe arrangement is for the children to live with M and have supervised monthly contact with F. Restrictions on F’s parental responsibility, a section 91A barring order, and extension/variation of the non-molestation order are necessary and proportionate to protect the welfare of the children and M.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in substantial part for M and the Guardian; F’s applications for unsupervised/indirect contact and to avoid restrictions refused.

Orders

  • Children to live with M; supervised contact with F once a month at a contact centre, to be booked and paid for by F.
  • No indirect (video, phone, letters/cards) contact unless agreed by M in writing.