X and Y (Children) (Child arrangements, Prohibited Steps, Passports), Re

X and Y (Children) (Child arrangements, Prohibited Steps, Passports), Re

The children’s welfare required that they live with the Mother, with the Father having only supported contact in a contact centre due to his lack of insight into findings of harm, lack of engagement with support, and untested parenting capacity. There was insufficient evidence to justify a Prohibited Steps Order, but the children’s welfare would be promoted by obtaining passports/ID as sought by the Mother. The Non-Molestation Order was extended for two years due to ongoing risk and the need to protect the Mother and children’s health, safety, and wellbeing.

Parties
Applicant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps, Passports, Non Molestation Order) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Orders made: children to live with Mother; Father to have supported contact in a contact centre; Non-Molestation Order extended for two years; permission for Mother to obtain British and Northern European passports/ID for the children; Prohibited Steps Order refused; undertakings discharged.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Non Molestation Order, Parental Responsibility, Domestic Abuse, Passports and Travel, Welfare Checklist, Contact Centre, Specific Issue Order
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Order Prohibited Steps Order Non Molestation Order Parental Responsibility Domestic Abuse Passports and Travel +3 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps, Passports, Non Molestation Order) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children should live with the Mother or shared care with the Father
  2. 2 Whether the Father should have direct or supported contact and at what frequency
  3. 3 Whether a Prohibited Steps Order should be made to prevent removal from jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The children’s welfare required that they live with the Mother, with the Father having only supported contact in a contact centre due to his lack of insight into findings of harm, lack of engagement with support, and untested parenting capacity. There was insufficient evidence to justify a Prohibited Steps Order, but the children’s welfare would be promoted by obtaining passports/ID as sought by the Mother. The Non-Molestation Order was extended for two years due to ongoing risk and the need to protect the Mother and children’s health, safety, and wellbeing.

Court Disposition

Orders made: children to live with Mother; Father to have supported contact in a contact centre; Non-Molestation Order extended for two years; permission for Mother to obtain British and Northern European passports/ID for the children; Prohibited Steps Order refused; undertakings discharged.

Orders

  • Final Child Arrangements Order: children to live with Mother
  • Father to have supported contact in a contact centre (frequency and duration as agreed, reflecting Father’s limited commitment)