England and Wales Case Law

Children: Parental Responsibility

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as she did not qualify under s42 HFEA due to natural conception; PR acquired by mistake is void ab initio. M2 is not granted PR for any child due to inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm to the children. F is granted PR for RF and AF due to demonstrated 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. Applications for name change, baptism, foreign passports, and unrestricted travel are refused. The application to set…

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements orders
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Specific issue orders
• Change of name

Read case analysis

A, B & C (Children) (Care and Placement), Re

The Family Court made final care orders for A, B and C, and a placement order for C. Contact was reduced to support permanence and stability.

• Care orders
• Placement order
• Adoption
• Contact
• Parental responsibility order
• Declaration of parentage

Read case analysis

London Borough of A v The Mother & Ors

Threshold criteria for care orders are met for all children due to findings of physical abuse, neglect, domestic abuse, and inability of parents to consistently meet needs. Care orders for Child D, Child E, and Child F, and a supervision order for Child C, are necessary and proportionate to safeguard welfare. Placement with parents or maternal uncle is not viable due to risk of harm, lack of insight, and inability to provide consistent care. Children's wishes and feelings considered but outweighed by welfare concerns.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Supervision orders
• Domestic abuse
• Child welfare
• Parental responsibility
• Placement

Read case analysis

XR (applicant father) v ZP (respondent mother)

Supervised contact is not ordered due to the father's demonstrated inconsistency, ongoing criminal proceedings, and risk of emotional harm to the children from inconsistent or inappropriate contact. The welfare of the children requires indirect contact only at this time.

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements
• Contact
• Welfare of children
• Domestic violence
• Parental responsibility

Read case analysis

Reuben (A Child), Re

Reuben's welfare is best served by a joint lives-with order, with majority time spent with his father, due to evidence of thriving in father's care, impaired ability of mother to meet emotional needs, entrenched litigation history, and professional recommendations. Emotional harm from ongoing litigation and mother's rigid narrative necessitates a s.91(14) order to provide respite and stability. No change of school is ordered, and communication between Reuben and the non-resident parent is regulated to reduce stress.

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements
• Residence
• Contact
• Section 91(14) orders
• Specific issue orders
• Welfare checklist

Read case analysis

London Borough of Tower Hamlets v The Mother & Ors

Adoption is the only option that meets ST's need for stability, safety, and permanence, given the risks and dysfunction in his immediate and extended family, the inability of W to reliably meet his complex needs alongside her own children's needs, and the inadequacy of other options. The threshold for care and placement orders is met, and it is necessary and proportionate to dispense with parental consent for adoption.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Special guardianship
• Welfare of the child
• Threshold criteria

Read case analysis

Kent County Council v X & Ors

A care order is necessary and proportionate due to the exceptional circumstance that maintaining the placement with the mother requires suspension of direct contact with the father, and only the legal responsibility and oversight of a care order fully meets the children's needs during this fragile transition. The threshold criteria are met, and the welfare checklist supports placement with the mother, with indirect contact and therapeutic work for B. Supervision order is insufficient given the complexity and risk.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Supervision orders
• Child arrangements
• Contact
• Domestic abuse
• Substance misuse

Read case analysis

JE v TS

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father engaged in a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour, committed physical abuse (including pushing the mother and throwing objects), and raped the mother on two occasions. The findings were based on the mother's credible and consistent evidence, corroborated by contemporaneous records and the father's lack of credibility, repeated lies, and manipulative conduct. The delay in reporting rape was explained by ongoing coercive control and later realisation through support services. The father's assertions of erectile dysfuncti…

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements
• Contact
• Domestic abuse
• Coercive and controlling behaviour
• Physical abuse
• Sexual abuse

Read case analysis

A, Re

F has shown inadequate insight into his abusive behaviour; the work undertaken as part of his suspended sentence is insufficient to mitigate risk; Dr. Bose's opinion is unreliable; Mr. Gay's recommendations cannot be followed; F must complete a DAPP course before contact arrangements can be changed; M is granted a 'live with' order for A.

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements order
• Contact
• Domestic abuse
• Coercive and controlling behaviour
• Risk assessment
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

CP v M & Ors

The Family Court declined to prolong contact proceedings brought by CP, holding that further hearings or therapy would harm the boys’ welfare. No order was made beyond memory boxes and updates.

• Child arrangements order
• Parental responsibility
• Contact
• Welfare of the child
• Alienation
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis