SP v WR & Anor

SP v WR & Anor

The child’s welfare requires substantially scaling back contact with the father to supervised contact six times per year, with indirect contact in intervening months. The prohibited steps order is discharged for the mother, permitting travel to XX, as the risk of wrongful retention is sufficiently low. A section 91(14) order is imposed to restrict further applications by the father until the child is 14, and a Family Law Act order prohibits the father from attending the mother’s property or posting videos relating to the child or proceedings online.

Parties
Applicant: SP; 1st Respondent: WR; 2nd Respondent: J (by her Children’s Guardian, Ms Melissa Ganser)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Contact order varied: supervised contact for father six times per year, indirect contact in intervening months; prohibited steps order discharged for mother; section 91(14) order imposed; Family Law Act order prohibiting father from attending mother’s property or posting videos online.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, International Child Travel, Domestic Abuse, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Child Arrangements Prohibited Steps Order Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 International Child Travel Domestic Abuse Welfare Checklist

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SP

Applicant

WR

1st Respondent

J (by her Children’s Guardian, Ms Melissa Ganser)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who the child should live with and the time she should spend with the other parent
  2. 2 Whether the existing prohibited steps order prohibiting removal of the child from the jurisdiction (as far as it relates to the mother) should be discharged
  3. 3 Whether the Court should permit the mother to travel to a Non-Hague Convention country with the child

Ratio Decidendi

The child’s welfare requires substantially scaling back contact with the father to supervised contact six times per year, with indirect contact in intervening months. The prohibited steps order is discharged for the mother, permitting travel to XX, as the risk of wrongful retention is sufficiently low. A section 91(14) order is imposed to restrict further applications by the father until the child is 14, and a Family Law Act order prohibits the father from attending the mother’s property or posting videos relating to the child or proceedings online.

Court Disposition

Contact order varied: supervised contact for father six times per year, indirect contact in intervening months; prohibited steps order discharged for mother; section 91(14) order imposed; Family Law Act order prohibiting father from attending mother’s property or posting videos online.

Orders

  • Supervised contact for father with child one weekend day every other month (six times per year), supervised by agreed third party or professional supervisor, father to bear costs.
  • Indirect contact by letters, cards, gifts on significant occasions and indirect video contact once per month in months without direct contact.