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. 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
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

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

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
Family law [2026] EWFC 99 (B)

P & Q (Children), Re (Finding of Fact)

P & Q (Children), Re (Finding of Fact) [2026] EWFC 99 (B) (05 May 2026)

The court found the father committed domestic abuse, including verbal, emotional and controlling conduct, but rejected the father's allegation that the mother alienated the children.

  • Domestic abuse
  • Child arrangements
  • Prohibited steps orders
  • Parental alienation
  • Fact finding hearings
  • Domestic-abuse
Read case analysis
Family law

Middlesbrough Borough Council v Mother & Ors

The threshold for significant harm under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is met due to parental substance misuse, mental health issues, domestic abuse, neglectful parenting, unsafe home conditions, and failure to engage with professionals. Welfare analysis supports care orders for X and W with foster placement, and supervision/child arrangements orders for Z and Y to live with Mr A. Section 91(14) order is justified to prevent further disruptive applications for 12 months due to ongoing risk of harm and lack of parental insight.

Source excerpt

  • Care orders
  • Supervision orders
  • Threshold criteria
  • Domestic abuse
  • Substance misuse
  • Mental health
Read case analysis
Family law [2026] EWHC 434 (Fam)

S v S (No. 2)(Art 21 Welfare)

S v S (No. 2)(Art 21 Welfare) [2026] EWHC 434 (Fam) (03 March 2026)

The High Court made a final lives-with order for the mother, barred all contact with the father, restricted his parental responsibility, and imposed a five-year s.91(14) filter.

  • Child arrangements orders
  • Prohibited steps orders
  • Specific issue orders
  • Section 91(14) orders
  • Domestic abuse
  • Parental responsibility
Read case analysis
Family law [2026] EWFC 57 (B)

A & B (Children), Re

A & B (Children), Re [2026] EWFC 57 (B) (03 March 2026)

The court refused the mother’s application for the children to live with her, found her allegations against the father unproven, and ordered the children to remain with their father with indirect contact only.

  • Child arrangements orders
  • Prohibited steps orders
  • Fact-finding hearings
  • Domestic abuse allegations
  • Safeguarding
  • Welfare principle
Read case analysis
Family law [2025] EWFC 502

Middlesbrough Borough Council v Mother & Ors

Middlesbrough Borough Council v Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 502 (10 December 2025)

Care proceedings concerning four children. The court found significant harm from substance misuse, domestic abuse, mental health issues and poor insight, and made care and supervision orders.

  • Care orders
  • Supervision orders
  • Child arrangements orders
  • Prohibited steps orders
  • Section 91(14) orders
  • Threshold criteria
Read case analysis
Family law [2025] EWFC 398 (B)

AB v CD

AB v CD [2025] EWFC 398 (B) (21 November 2025)

The Family Court held that AB’s conduct, including threats and controlling emails, justified ending all contact with EF, restricting parental responsibility, and extending protective orders.

  • Child arrangements
  • Domestic abuse
  • Non-molestation orders
  • Section 91(14) children act 1989
  • Parental responsibility restrictions
  • Prohibited steps orders
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.