X (A Child : child arrangements order)
The court refused W's application for direct contact because X's welfare, stability, and emotional needs are best served by maintaining her current arrangements, with age-appropriate information about her genetic background provided by Y. Risks of disruption, confusion, and impact on Y's mental health outweigh any benefit from direct contact with W.
- Parties
- Applicant: W; 1st Respondent: Y; 2nd Respondent: Z
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 July 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Child Arrangements Order Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- Child Arrangements, Parental Responsibility, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Artificial Insemination, Donor Parent Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
W
Applicant
Y
1st Respondent
Z
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Child Arrangements Order Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the biological father (W) should be granted a child arrangements order to spend time with X
- 2 Whether a Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order should be made to restrict further applications by W
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused W's application for direct contact because X's welfare, stability, and emotional needs are best served by maintaining her current arrangements, with age-appropriate information about her genetic background provided by Y. Risks of disruption, confusion, and impact on Y's mental health outweigh any benefit from direct contact with W.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- W's application for direct contact with X is refused
- Annual indirect contact (exchange of information and photographs) to continue
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment