Esheria England and Wales Case Law
Sign in
England and Wales Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

England and Wales Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter England and Wales case law

Results update automatically as you type.

England and Wales decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family law

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
Family 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
Family law

MP (A Child; Habitual Residence), Re

As at the date of issue of the father's Children Act proceedings (29 July 2025), MP was habitually resident in Country B. The court found that MP's presence in England was always contingent on not exceeding 120 days per year due to tax residency, that his integration and lived experience in Country B (especially with his mother) outweighed the factors supporting habitual residence in England, and that recent experiences and connections in Country B were more immediate and substantial. Accordingly, the courts of Country B have primary jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility for MP…

Source excerpt

  • Habitual residence
  • Jurisdiction
  • Parental responsibility
  • Children act 1989
  • Hague convention 1996
Read case analysis
Family law

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
Family law

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
Family law

Birmingham City Council v M & Ors

The threshold for care orders is met due to the mother's inability, despite significant effort and support, to meet the children's basic needs and protect them from harm. A final care order for C and a placement order for A are necessary and proportionate to safeguard their welfare, as no less intrusive alternatives are available.

Source excerpt

  • Care orders
  • Adoption
  • Parental responsibility
  • Child welfare
  • Threshold criteria
Read case analysis
Family law

London Borough of Havering v R & Ors

The court finds that threshold criteria are met due to the parents' vulnerabilities, substance misuse, lack of engagement, and inability to provide safe and consistent care for Q. Further residential assessment of R is not justified as it would cause delay, is unlikely to be positive, and is not in Q's welfare interests. There are no realistic family or friend placement options. Adoption is the only option that meets Q's immediate and long-term welfare needs. Parental consent to placement order is dispensed with as Q's welfare requires it.

Source excerpt

  • Care orders
  • Placement orders
  • Parental responsibility
  • Threshold criteria
  • Welfare checklist
  • Residential assessment
Read case analysis
Family law

Essex County Council v F1 & Ors

The threshold for a care order was met due to F1's emotional harm to the children, involvement in sexual activity with adolescents, refusal to foster A's relationship with his biological father, and refusal to accept help. A's age and strong wish to return home justified discharge of the interim care order and return to F1 under a supervision order, while B's needs and emotional welfare required a care order and continued foster placement.

Source excerpt

  • Care orders
  • Parental responsibility
  • Child welfare
  • Change of name
  • Contact arrangements
  • Threshold criteria
Read case analysis
Family law

Medway Council v The Father & Anor

The consents given by O’s father to the restrictions and supervision in O’s care, school, and respite arrangements fall within the zone of his parental responsibility, are in O’s best interests, and therefore do not amount to a deprivation of liberty requiring court authorisation. The application for authorisation is unnecessary and dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Deprivation of liberty
  • Parental responsibility
  • Children with disabilities
  • Article 5 echr
  • Gillick competence
Read case analysis
Family law

M v F (Fact Finding Hearing)

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

  • Domestic abuse
  • Fact finding
  • Non-molestation orders
  • Prohibited steps orders
  • Specific issue orders
  • Child contact
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

England and Wales decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.