England and Wales Case Law

A (A Child) (Fact-finding: domestic abuse and alienating behaviour), Re

None of the allegations of sexual or physical abuse by F against A were established on the balance of probabilities. There is no evidence that M encouraged or pressurised A to make false disclosures or engaged in alienating behaviour. M did seek to restrict Mr R's professional involvement with A, but this did not amount to alienation. A's refusal to see F is not justified by F's behaviour, nor is it proved to be caused by alienation by M.

Source excerpt

• Fact-finding hearing
• Domestic abuse
• Parental alienation
• Child arrangements
• Contact refusal

Read case analysis

M & N (Children) (Abduction: Ireland; Art 13(b); Child Objections), Re

The mother failed to establish a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation under Article 13(b) due to the adequacy of protective measures and support available in Ireland. The children's objections, though strong, do not outweigh the powerful policy reasons for return, including ongoing proceedings and jurisdictional competence of the Irish courts.

Source excerpt

• Hague convention 1980
• Article 13(b) defence
• Child objections
• Protective measures
• Judicial comity

Read case analysis

J (a Child) (No. 1) (Change of Residence), Re

The mother breached the December 2024 child arrangements order in February and May 2025 without reasonable excuse. The father's proposals for J to live with him and spend time with the mother provide greater security and consistency for J, addressing the risk of harm from parental conflict and acrimony. The change of residence is in J's best interests, given the mother's repeated unilateral actions and lack of insight into their impact on J.

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements
• Change of residence
• Enforcement of court orders
• Parental responsibility
• Prohibited steps order

Read case analysis

TM v GL

Faith's welfare requires that she lives with her mother, with contact to father conditional on stable accommodation to ensure consistency and emotional security. A section 91(14) order is justified for 12 months to prevent further disruptive litigation and allow arrangements to settle. Father's conduct in pursuing the enforcement application was unreasonable and merits an indemnity costs order.

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements order
• Enforcement of child arrangements
• Section 91(14) orders
• Costs in family proceedings

Read case analysis

J (a Child) (No. 2) (Contact Following Change of Residence), Re

The mother’s conduct has been abusive, unpredictable, and in breach of undertakings and orders, posing a high risk of further harm to the father and emotional harm to J. The mandatory provisions of Practice Direction 12J cannot be met by supervised contact, as the father’s safety cannot be secured. Indirect contact only is ordered until the mother undertakes work to address her behaviour. Section 91(14) order is granted for three years to protect J from further litigation. Non-Molestation Order is extended for three years. Disclosure of the mother’s witness statements to the police is permitt…

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements
• Contact orders
• Domestic abuse
• Non-molestation orders
• Section 91(14) orders
• Prohibited steps orders

Read case analysis

Re E (A Child) (Special Guardianship Order: Public Law Proceedings)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had approached the special guardianship decision as a simple welfare balance and should have applied proportionality and, in context, threshold analysis.

• Special guardianship order
• Care proceedings
• Threshold criteria
• Article 8 proportionality
• Child welfare
• Special-guardianship-order

Read case analysis

Essex County Council v MH & Ors

The High Court authorised ST’s deprivation of liberty, holding the restrictions were necessary and proportionate while a step-down plan and wider care arrangements were progressed.

• Deprivation of liberty
• Secure accommodation
• Corporate parenting
• Education provision
• Therapeutic support
• Placement monitoring

Read case analysis

Mercy Ofori-Kuma v Victoria Ofori-Kuma and Michaela Fordjor and Karyn Ofori and Delores Ofori (Ofori-Kuma v Ofori (Burial or Cremation))

The High Court dismissed a mother and aunt’s bid to control funeral arrangements, holding the deceased had wished to be cremated and that the children had priority.

• Funeral and cremation arrangements
• Grant of letters of administration
• Inherent jurisdiction
• Section 116 senior courts act 1981
• Non-contentious probate rules 1987 r.22
• Dispute over deceased's wishes

Read case analysis

In the Petition of DM

The Supreme Court held that a child’s views can be considered under article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, but still dismissed the appeal and upheld refusal of return.

• Hague convention 1980
• Article 12 return applications
• Article 13(b) grave risk defence
• Child’s views and discretion
• Psychological harm
• Suicide risk

Read case analysis

DR v ES and Ors (Further LSPO Application)

A further LSPO is granted in favour of the wife, encompassing a portion of historic costs and future costs, as the wife would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services without such funding, and the husband can afford to pay. The LSPO is structured to ensure equality of arms, with payments in instalments and restrictions on the husband's use of funds raised.

Source excerpt

• Legal services payment order (lspo)
• Financial remedies
• Costs funding
• Equality of arms
• Historic legal costs

Read case analysis