S (A Child), Re [2010] EWHC 192 (Fam) (04 January 2010)

S (A Child), Re [2010] EWHC 192 (Fam) (04 January 2010)

The court found that although S has suffered emotional harm due to parental conflict and is at risk of further harm if alienation continues, the evidence does not support that a change of residence to the father would be in S's best interests. The harm and disruption caused by such a move would outweigh the potential benefits, especially given S's strong opposition and the lack of professional support for transfer. The paramount consideration remains S's welfare, which is best served by maintaining the status quo with the mother, indirect contact with the father, and restricting further litigation for a period.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 192 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: TE; First Respondent: SH; Second Respondent: S (by his guardian ad litem, the National Youth Advocacy Service)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Residence Order (private Law, Child) / Final Judgment on Application for Residence Order
Outcome
Father's application for residence order dismissed; application for direct contact dismissed; order for indirect contact; order under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 made for one year.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Parental Responsibility, Child Welfare, Contact Orders, Alienation, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Parental Responsibility Child Welfare Contact Orders Alienation Section 91(14) Children Act 1989

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TE

Applicant

SH

First Respondent

S (by his guardian ad litem, the National Youth Advocacy Service)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Residence Order (private Law, Child) / Final Judgment on Application for Residence Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a residence order should be made in favour of the father, transferring residence from mother to father
  2. 2 Whether the welfare of the child (S) requires a change of residence
  3. 3 What weight should be given to the child's expressed wishes and feelings in the context of alienation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although S has suffered emotional harm due to parental conflict and is at risk of further harm if alienation continues, the evidence does not support that a change of residence to the father would be in S's best interests. The harm and disruption caused by such a move would outweigh the potential benefits, especially given S's strong opposition and the lack of professional support for transfer. The paramount consideration remains S's welfare, which is best served by maintaining the status quo with the mother, indirect contact with the father, and restricting further litigation for a period.

Court Disposition

Father's application for residence order dismissed; application for direct contact dismissed; order for indirect contact; order under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 made for one year.

Orders

  • Father's application for residence order is dismissed.
  • Father's application for direct contact is dismissed.