M v F

M v F

There has been no material change in A's circumstances since October 2023, but parental conflict persists, primarily due to the mother's intransigence and failure to accept professional input. A has coped well with incremental changes and is supported by school and professionals. The mother's application to vary the order was without merit, exaggerated, and not supported by evidence. To reduce transitions and conflict, the child arrangements order is varied to week-on/week-off with handovers at school. A prohibited steps order prevents removal from school, a non-molestation order is made for 9 months, and a Section 91(14) order restricts further applications until A is 18. Solicitors must...

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements Variation / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application to vary child arrangements order partially allowed; prohibited steps order granted; non-molestation order granted; Section 91(14) order granted; wasted costs order to be considered.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Variation of Order, Autism and Special Needs, Parental Conflict, Non Molestation Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Section 91(14) Order, Litigation Conduct
Family Law Child Welfare Child Arrangements Order Variation of Order Autism and Special Needs Parental Conflict Non Molestation Order Prohibited Steps Order +2 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 7 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Arrangements Variation / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child arrangements order should be varied due to A's welfare and needs
  2. 2 Whether a prohibited steps order is necessary to prevent removal from school
  3. 3 Whether a non-molestation order is justified

Ratio Decidendi

There has been no material change in A's circumstances since October 2023, but parental conflict persists, primarily due to the mother's intransigence and failure to accept professional input. A has coped well with incremental changes and is supported by school and professionals. The mother's application to vary the order was without merit, exaggerated, and not supported by evidence. To reduce transitions and conflict, the child arrangements order is varied to week-on/week-off with handovers at school. A prohibited steps order prevents removal from school, a non-molestation order is made for 9 months, and a Section 91(14) order restricts further applications until A is 18. Solicitors must...

Court Disposition

Application to vary child arrangements order partially allowed; prohibited steps order granted; non-molestation order granted; Section 91(14) order granted; wasted costs order to be considered.

Orders

  • Child arrangements order varied to week-on/week-off with handovers at school on Fridays.
  • Prohibited steps order preventing removal of A from school named in EHCP for 3 years.