HM v HF [2024] EWFC 441 (B) (16 December 2024)

HM v HF [2024] EWFC 441 (B) (16 December 2024)

The risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children from the Respondent, due to his ongoing mental health instability, substance misuse, fixation on unsubstantiated abuse allegations, and inability to comply with court orders, outweighs the benefits of direct contact at this time. The children should live...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 441 (B)
Parties
Applicant: HM; Respondent: HF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Order (family Court) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; children to live with Applicant; indirect contact only with Respondent; non-molestation and prohibited steps orders continued.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Non Molestation Order, Welfare of the Child, Parental Contact, Mental Health and Parenting, Substance Misuse, Section 7 CAFCASS Report, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Litigation Capacity
Family Law Child Arrangements Order Prohibited Steps Order Non Molestation Order Welfare of the Child Parental Contact Mental Health and Parenting Substance Misuse +3 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM

Applicant

HF

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Order (family Court) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children should live with the Applicant or Respondent
  2. 2 Whether direct or indirect contact with the Respondent is in the children's best interests
  3. 3 Whether a prohibited steps order and non-molestation order should be continued

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children from the Respondent, due to his ongoing mental health instability, substance misuse, fixation on unsubstantiated abuse allegations, and inability to comply with court orders, outweighs the benefits of direct contact at this time. The children should live with the Applicant and have only indirect contact with the Respondent until he demonstrates sustained improvement in mental health and compliance with treatment.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; children to live with Applicant; indirect contact only with Respondent; non-molestation and prohibited steps orders continued.

Orders

  • Children to live with the Applicant (lives with order)
  • Respondent to have indirect contact only (letters/cards monthly, plus Christmas and birthdays)