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

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

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

TK v SD

The High Court held the children had become habitually resident in Kenya by mid-August 2025, so there was no wrongful retention and the mother’s return application failed.

• Habitual residence
• 1996 hague convention
• Wrongful retention
• Jurisdiction
• Child arrangements
• Domestic abuse/coercive control

Read case analysis

Children: Parental Responsibility, Re

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as the statutory criteria under section 42 HFEA were not met due to natural insemination; granting PR to M2 would not be in the children's best interests given her inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm. F is granted PR for RF and AF based on commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Section 91(14) order is made to restrict further applications for two years. Applications for baptism, travel, passports, and adop…

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Special guardianship
• Adoption

Read case analysis

JX (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing), Re

Both parties perpetrated domestic abuse in a toxic, volatile relationship. The mother was physically abusive towards the father, including hitting, threats, and loss of self-control, some of which she admitted. The father engaged in emotionally controlling and dismissive behaviour, including stonewalling, unilateral decision-making post-separation, and conduct likely to cause the mother emotional harm and ongoing control using the child. Both parties' behaviours caused emotional harm to the child. The court found specific allegations proven or part-proven as detailed, and determined that both…

Source excerpt

• Domestic abuse
• Coercive and controlling behaviour
• Physical abuse
• Child arrangements
• Parental responsibility
• Contact arrangements

Read case analysis

Angela v Robert

The respondent's conduct, including emotional manipulation, threats, unreasonable demands, and persistent behaviour, amounted to emotional abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, justifying the continuation of the non-molestation order and influencing child arrangements.

Source excerpt

• Non-molestation order
• Child arrangements
• Prohibited steps order
• Specific issue order
• Coercive and controlling behaviour
• Emotional abuse

Read case analysis

A, B and C (Children: Perpetrator Finding), Re

The judge's assessment of the evidence and witness reliability was thorough and justified; there was no basis for appellate interference. The finding that the mother inflicted the injury was open to the judge on the balance of probabilities.

Source excerpt

• Care proceedings
• Non-accidental injury
• Identification of perpetrator
• Appeal against fact-finding
• Domestic abuse
• Child arrangements

Read case analysis

M v F & Anor

The Family Court extended protective orders for a nearly 17-year-old child, maintained indirect contact only with the father, and imposed a section 91(14) restraint.

• Child arrangements
• Prohibited steps order
• Non-molestation order
• Section 91(14) order
• Welfare of the child
• Indirect contact

Read case analysis

M v F & Anor

M v F & Anor [2026] EWFC 106 (B) (13 May 2026)

The Family Court extended protective orders for a nearly 17-year-old child, continued indirect-only contact with the father, and made a section 91(14) order.

• Child arrangements
• Prohibited steps order
• Non-molestation order
• Section 91(14) order
• Welfare checklist
• Domestic abuse

Read case analysis