F v M (Rev1) [2023] EWFC 5 (16 January 2023)

F v M (Rev1) [2023] EWFC 5 (16 January 2023)

Given the father's proven coercive and controlling behaviour, rape, and lack of insight or empathy, any form of contact, including indirect contact, would be harmful and contrary to the children's welfare. The court's protective jurisdiction justifies a Section 91(14) order until the youngest child is 18, a Prohibited Steps Order, and extension of the non-molestation order. The statutory framework does not permit revocation of parental responsibility for married fathers, but the court can and must neutralise its practical effect through orders.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 5
Parties
Applicant: F; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Arrangements and Protective Orders / Final Hearing and Judgment After Fact Finding, Appeals, and Submissions on Protective Orders
Outcome
All forms of contact between the father and the children, direct and indirect, are refused. Protective orders are made as set out below.
Legal Topics
Coercive and Controlling Behaviour, Parental Responsibility, Prohibited Steps Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Indirect Contact, Non Molestation Orders, Disclosure to Authorities
Family Law Child Protection Domestic Abuse Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Parental Responsibility Prohibited Steps Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Indirect Contact +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Arrangements and Protective Orders / Final Hearing and Judgment After Fact Finding, Appeals, and Submissions on Protective Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father should have any direct or indirect contact with the children given findings of coercive and controlling behaviour and rape
  2. 2 Whether a Section 91(14) order should be made to restrict the father's future applications
  3. 3 Whether the mother can seek removal of the father's parental responsibility given marital status

Ratio Decidendi

Given the father's proven coercive and controlling behaviour, rape, and lack of insight or empathy, any form of contact, including indirect contact, would be harmful and contrary to the children's welfare. The court's protective jurisdiction justifies a Section 91(14) order until the youngest child is 18, a Prohibited Steps Order, and extension of the non-molestation order. The statutory framework does not permit revocation of parental responsibility for married fathers, but the court can and must neutralise its practical effect through orders.

Court Disposition

All forms of contact between the father and the children, direct and indirect, are refused. Protective orders are made as set out below.

Orders

  • No direct or indirect contact between the father and the children.
  • Prohibited Steps Order: Father may not exercise parental responsibility without court consent.