George & Ors, Re

George & Ors, Re

The father's application for joint care is refused due to significant risks to the children, particularly George, arising from the father's inability to ensure their safety and his failure to change his behaviour. Supervised contact at the maternal grandparents' home for up to three hours once a month is in the children's best interests. A section 91(14) order is necessary to protect the children and mother from further vexatious litigation by the father. A family assistance order is refused as further local authority involvement is not in the children's interests. A non-molestation order is granted to protect the mother from the father's ongoing harassment. The father's complaint to...

Parties
Applicant: FTF; Respondent: MWM; Intervener: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements and Ancillary Family Applications / Final Judgment
Outcome
Father's application for joint care dismissed; supervised contact ordered; section 91(14) order granted; family assistance order refused; non-molestation order granted; injunctions and costs orders made; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Non Molestation Order, Family Assistance Order, Enforcement of Contact Orders, Costs in Family Proceedings
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Order Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Non Molestation Order Family Assistance Order Enforcement of Contact Orders Costs in Family Proceedings

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FTF

Applicant

MWM

Respondent

Local Authority

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements and Ancillary Family Applications / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant joint care to the father
  2. 2 Appropriate contact arrangements for the father
  3. 3 Whether to make a section 91(14) order restricting further applications by the father

Ratio Decidendi

The father's application for joint care is refused due to significant risks to the children, particularly George, arising from the father's inability to ensure their safety and his failure to change his behaviour. Supervised contact at the maternal grandparents' home for up to three hours once a month is in the children's best interests. A section 91(14) order is necessary to protect the children and mother from further vexatious litigation by the father. A family assistance order is refused as further local authority involvement is not in the children's interests. A non-molestation order is granted to protect the mother from the father's ongoing harassment. The father's complaint to...

Court Disposition

Father's application for joint care dismissed; supervised contact ordered; section 91(14) order granted; family assistance order refused; non-molestation order granted; injunctions and costs orders made; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Father's application for joint care dismissed
  • Supervised contact at maternal grandparents' for up to three hours once a month