JD & Anor v VB & Ors [2020] EWFC 16 (04 March 2020)

JD & Anor v VB & Ors [2020] EWFC 16 (04 March 2020)

The risk of destabilising A's current placement with her father and stepmother, including the risk to the father's mental health and potential loss of A's primary carers, outweighs the harm to A caused by refusing direct contact with her mother and B. The indirect contact order should continue. Non-molestation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWFC 16
Parties
Applicant: JD; Applicant: LD; 1st Respondent: VB; 2nd Respondent: B; 3rd Respondent: A (by her children’s guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Arrangements and Contact / Final Hearing Following Appeal and Remittal for Re Hearing
Outcome
Indirect contact order to continue; applications for direct contact refused at this stage; non-molestation injunctions and further prohibited steps orders against mother and B refused; section 91(14) order made for four years; family assistance order for 12 months.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibility, Prohibited Steps Orders, Non Molestation Injunctions, Section 91(14) Barring Orders, Parental Alienation, Welfare Principle
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Parental Responsibility Prohibited Steps Orders Non Molestation Injunctions Section 91(14) Barring Orders +2 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 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JD

Applicant

LD

Applicant

VB

1st Respondent

B

2nd Respondent

A (by her children’s guardian)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Arrangements and Contact / Final Hearing Following Appeal and Remittal for Re Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary an order for direct contact between child A and her mother and half-sister B
  2. 2 Whether to grant non-molestation injunctions against the mother and B
  3. 3 Whether to extend prohibited steps orders

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of destabilising A's current placement with her father and stepmother, including the risk to the father's mental health and potential loss of A's primary carers, outweighs the harm to A caused by refusing direct contact with her mother and B. The indirect contact order should continue. Non-molestation injunctions and further prohibited steps orders against the mother and B are not necessary or proportionate. A section 91(14) order restricting further applications for four years is justified to prevent further litigation-induced harm to A.

Court Disposition

Indirect contact order to continue; applications for direct contact refused at this stage; non-molestation injunctions and further prohibited steps orders against mother and B refused; section 91(14) order made for four years; family assistance order for 12 months.

Orders

  • Indirect contact order between A and her mother and B to continue as previously ordered.
  • No extension of prohibited steps orders or non-molestation injunctions against the mother; application for non-molestation injunction against B refused.