England and Wales Case Law

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

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

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

L v P

L v P [2026] EWHC 1209 (Fam) (07 May 2026)

The High Court refused to set aside a 3-year Civil Restraint Order against a father after repeated meritless applications in child-contact litigation.

• Civil restraint orders
• Section 91(14) orders
• Permission to appeal
• Child contact
• Civil-restraint-orders
• Section-91-14-orders

Read case analysis

L v P

The High Court refused to set aside a civil restraint order against a father after repeated meritless family applications, finding no evidence of changed behaviour.

• Civil restraint orders
• Section 91(14) orders
• Permission to appeal
• Civil-restraint-orders
• Section-91-14-orders
• Permission-to-appeal

Read case analysis

A Father v A Mother

A Father v A Mother [2026] EWFC 110 (27 April 2026)

The Family Court found repeated physical abuse and coercive control by the father, rejected alienation allegations, refused direct contact, and made a one-year section 91(14) order.

• Child arrangements
• Domestic abuse
• Parental alienation
• Welfare of the child
• Coercive control
• Contact orders

Read case analysis

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

S v S (No2)(Art 21 Welfare)

The court found that the children suffered emotional and physical harm from the father's abusive conduct, that the father lacks insight and poses ongoing risk, and that the children's welfare requires a final lives with order in favour of the mother, no contact with the father, restrictions on the father's parental responsibility, and a section 91(14) order for five years.

Source excerpt

• Child arrangements
• Parental responsibility
• Domestic abuse
• Section 91(14) orders
• Hague convention
• Asylum and refugee status

Read case analysis

D v E (Welfare Decision following Findings of Domestic Abuse)

D v E (Welfare Decision following Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWFC 77 (B) (24 March 2026)

Following findings of domestic abuse, the court stopped all direct contact between a child and her father, continued a medical-information PSO, made a s91(14) order, and allowed anonymised publication.

• Domestic abuse
• Child contact
• Prohibited steps order
• Section 91(14) orders
• Welfare checklist
• Parental involvement presumption

Read case analysis