MT v FY

MT v FY

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that FY breached his undertakings by raising his voice and being physically aggressive towards L during contact, causing significant emotional harm to M. MY acted reasonably and child-centredly in suspending unsupervised contact and seeking supervised contact, following professional advice. M's welfare required that contact with FY be supervised and supported by Ms Kenley. FY's conduct and lack of insight into his impact on the children justified the variation of the child arrangements order.

Parties
Applicant: MY; Respondent: FY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing of Cross Applications to Vary and Enforce Child Arrangements Order
Outcome
Child arrangements order varied: M's contact with FY to be supervised and supported by Ms Kenley; unsupervised, overnight, and overseas contact denied at present.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Supervised Contact, Emotional Harm, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Supervised Contact Emotional Harm Parental Responsibility

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MY

Applicant

FY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing of Cross Applications to Vary and Enforce Child Arrangements Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FY breached undertakings regarding conduct during contact
  2. 2 Whether MY failed to comply with contact orders without reasonable excuse
  3. 3 Whether M suffered harm attributable to FY's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that FY breached his undertakings by raising his voice and being physically aggressive towards L during contact, causing significant emotional harm to M. MY acted reasonably and child-centredly in suspending unsupervised contact and seeking supervised contact, following professional advice. M's welfare required that contact with FY be supervised and supported by Ms Kenley. FY's conduct and lack of insight into his impact on the children justified the variation of the child arrangements order.

Court Disposition

Child arrangements order varied: M's contact with FY to be supervised and supported by Ms Kenley; unsupervised, overnight, and overseas contact denied at present.

Orders

  • M to spend time with FY only when supervised and supported by Ms Kenley.
  • FY to undertake professional assessment before any consideration of unsupervised contact.