F v M & Ors

F v M & Ors

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that F was violent, controlling, and posed a grave and ongoing risk of physical and emotional harm to M and the children, including risk of abduction. F's repeated breaches of court orders, lack of remorse, and attempts to circumvent restrictions justified orders for no contact, change of names, restriction of parental responsibility, and a s91(14) order. Allegations of radicalisation were not substantiated by evidence. F's application for circumcision of B was refused as not in the child's welfare.

Parties
Applicant: M; 1st Respondent: F; 2nd & 3rd Respondents: A & B (Children by their guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings Under the Children Act 1989 / Final Judgment After Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Applicant's applications granted; respondent's applications refused.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Specific Issue Orders, Change of Name, Termination/restriction of Parental Responsibility, No Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Domestic Violence, Risk of Abduction, Radicalisation Allegations
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Specific Issue Orders Change of Name Termination/restriction of Parental Responsibility No Contact Orders +4 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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

F

1st Respondent

A & B (Children by their guardian)

2nd & 3rd Respondents

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings Under the Children Act 1989 / Final Judgment After Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father (F) poses a risk of harm to the children and mother justifying no contact and restriction of parental responsibility
  2. 2 Whether the children's names should be changed for their protection
  3. 3 Whether F should be prevented from making further applications without leave (s91(14) order)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that F was violent, controlling, and posed a grave and ongoing risk of physical and emotional harm to M and the children, including risk of abduction. F's repeated breaches of court orders, lack of remorse, and attempts to circumvent restrictions justified orders for no contact, change of names, restriction of parental responsibility, and a s91(14) order. Allegations of radicalisation were not substantiated by evidence. F's application for circumcision of B was refused as not in the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Applicant's applications granted; respondent's applications refused.

Orders

  • Child arrangements orders: children to live with M; no contact (direct or indirect) with F.
  • Specific issue and prohibited steps orders: M may change children's first and surnames; F's parental responsibility restricted to prevent access to information from schools or health services.