Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found the mother's allegations of sexual coercion, conditional consent rape, physical abuse, and controlling/coercive behaviour to be false, preferring the father's evidence and finding no behaviour by the father justifying continuation of any restrictive orders.
Source excerpt
Given the identified risks—CF's unresolved pornography addiction and impulsivity, the risk of X developing false beliefs about past abuse, delay in re-establishing the father-child relationship, and CM's entrenched beliefs—the court determined that direct contact should not be ordered until all parties have completed recommended therapeutic interventions and their success is evidenced. Indirect contact is to continue, and a specific issue order is made for X to engage in therapy. The proceedings are concluded to avoid further delay, with the possibility of review after therapy completion.
Source excerpt
The removal of H from MA's care was wrongful as the Local Authority failed to follow the guidance in Re DE, did not notify the Guardian, and acted on chronic concerns that did not warrant urgent removal. The Special Guardianship Order in favour of MA was appropriate, and the judgment should be published naming the Local Authority for transparency and public interest.
Source excerpt
The High Court ordered Z’s return to Egypt only if a DSA and Egyptian court order are secured and the father pays 100,000 EGP in advance; otherwise Z stays in England.
The court found that the children suffered emotional and physical harm from the father's abusive conduct, that the father lacks insight and poses ongoing risk, and that the children's welfare requires a final lives with order in favour of the mother, no contact with the father, restrictions on the father's parental responsibility, and a section 91(14) order for five years.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld a section 26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 order requiring annual face-to-face contact between two boys and their father after placement for adoption.
The High Court authorised a short deprivation of liberty for a highly vulnerable child, BA, to enable transfer from an inappropriate hospital setting to a children’s home with education and therapy.
The District Judge erred by progressing contact to unsupervised prior to determination of serious domestic abuse allegations, failing to properly apply Practice Direction 12J paragraphs 25-27 and the welfare checklist, thereby exposing the child and mother to unmanageable risk of harm.
Source excerpt
The balance of welfare factors tips decisively in favour of the mother's proposal for A to remain in Ghana with her, given the risks posed by the father's ongoing cannabis use, his lack of experience as sole carer, and the mother's willingness to comply with contact orders. The court finds the mother's plan to relocate genuine and considers that a mirror order in Ghana will safeguard A's relationship with her father. The disruption of moving A to England is outweighed by the risks of placing her in the father's care at this time.
Source excerpt
The court found the mother posed ongoing emotional harm to the children due to her negative beliefs and conduct, lacked insight, and was unable to meet their emotional and psychological needs. The father was found to be capable and child-focused. The children’s best interests required living with their father, with managed and supervised contact with the mother only if she re-engages. The court cannot compel contact and must prioritize the children’s welfare and stability.
Source excerpt
Explore more
