Children: Parental Responsibility, Re

Children: Parental Responsibility, Re

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as the statutory criteria under section 42 HFEA were not met due to natural insemination; granting PR to M2 would not be in the children's best interests given her inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm. F is granted PR for RF and AF based on commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Section 91(14) order is made to restrict further applications for two years. Applications for baptism, travel, passports, and adoption are refused.

Parties
Applicant: M1; Respondent/cross Applicant: M2; Respondent/cross Applicant: F; Respondent: RF; Respondent: AF; Respondent: FA; Children's Guardian: Mr B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2026
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Welfare Hearing
Outcome
Applications for parental responsibility by M2 refused; F granted parental responsibility for RF and AF; M2's contact with RF and AF supervised; FA lives with M1, no contact with M2; Section 91(14) order restricting further applications for two years; applications for baptism, travel, passports, adoption, and name...
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements, Declarations of Parentage, Prohibited Steps Orders, Special Guardianship, Adoption, Disclosure, Social Media Restrictions, Section 91(14) Orders
Family Law Child Law Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements Declarations of Parentage Prohibited Steps Orders Special Guardianship Adoption +3 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M1

Applicant

M2

Respondent/cross Applicant

F

Respondent/cross Applicant

RF

Respondent

AF

Respondent

FA

Respondent

Mr B

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Welfare Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether M2 retains or should be granted parental responsibility for RF, AF, and FA
  2. 2 Whether F should be granted parental responsibility for RF and AF
  3. 3 Whether M2 should have contact with FA

Ratio Decidendi

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as the statutory criteria under section 42 HFEA were not met due to natural insemination; granting PR to M2 would not be in the children's best interests given her inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm. F is granted PR for RF and AF based on commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Section 91(14) order is made to restrict further applications for two years. Applications for baptism, travel, passports, and adoption are refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for parental responsibility by M2 refused; F granted parental responsibility for RF and AF; M2's contact with RF and AF supervised; FA lives with M1, no contact with M2; Section 91(14) order restricting further applications for two years; applications for baptism, travel, passports, adoption, and name...

Orders

  • RF and AF to live with M1
  • M2's contact with RF and AF supervised for 6 hours once a month with agreed supervisor