F v M [2024] EWFC 198 (19 July 2024)

F v M [2024] EWFC 198 (19 July 2024)

The Prohibited Steps Order was discharged because there was no evidential basis for a real risk of abduction by the father, and its continuation would be contrary to the child's welfare. The number of consecutive nights the child spends with each parent during summer holidays should increase to 12 in 2025 and 14 in 2026, as this is in the child's best interests and not precluded by health or emotional concerns. No order is necessary prohibiting the father from leaving the child with a third party overnight, as there is no evidence this would be contrary to the child's welfare.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 198
Parties
Applicant: F; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Order / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application to discharge the Prohibited Steps Order granted; applications for restrictions on overnight care by third parties refused; variation of child arrangements order as to holiday contact granted.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Variation of Orders, International Travel With Child, Welfare Principle
Family Law Child Arrangements Order Prohibited Steps Order Variation of Orders International Travel With Child 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Order / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to discharge the Prohibited Steps Order preventing the father from taking the child out of the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Determination of the number of consecutive nights the child should spend with each parent during summer holidays
  3. 3 Whether to prohibit the father from leaving the child in the care of a third party overnight

Ratio Decidendi

The Prohibited Steps Order was discharged because there was no evidential basis for a real risk of abduction by the father, and its continuation would be contrary to the child's welfare. The number of consecutive nights the child spends with each parent during summer holidays should increase to 12 in 2025 and 14 in 2026, as this is in the child's best interests and not precluded by health or emotional concerns. No order is necessary prohibiting the father from leaving the child with a third party overnight, as there is no evidence this would be contrary to the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the Prohibited Steps Order granted; applications for restrictions on overnight care by third parties refused; variation of child arrangements order as to holiday contact granted.

Orders

  • Prohibited Steps Order preventing father from taking child out of jurisdiction discharged.
  • Child arrangements order varied to allow 12 consecutive nights with each parent in 2025 and 14 in 2026 during summer holidays.