31 Mar 2025
The court held that despite unresolved ancillary relief and problematical financial provision, the arrangements for the child's welfare are the best that can be devised in the circumstances and a Section 18 declaration was proper; therefore the Decree Nisi was made absolute and the father's opposition did not raise any new substantive matter to prevent that order.
21 Feb 2025
On the evidence the court found no parental alienation by the Father; having regard to the children's welfare, the 2018 consent arrangements had been altered in practice and best interests required varying care and control: joint custody retained but care and control of both children granted to the Father, with defined access to the Mother (specific weekday dinners and alternate weekend access) and equal, mutually agreed holiday sharing; Social Welfare Officer reports considered but the court reached a different conclusion on G based on sibling unity, stability and changed circumstances.
11 Feb 2025
No material change of circumstances was shown within the brief interval after the Master’s December 2023 order; the court gave decisive weight to the social welfare reports and the daughter's expressed wish to limit contact while preparing for DSE; the mother's absence at the Master’s hearing was not credibly explained; accordingly the variation was refused and the Master’s order was not disturbed.
31 May 2023
On balance, in the best interests of the children the court granted joint custody but awarded care and control to the Father to preserve stability and familiarity for children with special needs, because the Father and paternal family offered a more reliable daily regime and the Mother had missed or cancelled important medical appointments and shown inadequate practical execution; the Mother was granted defined staying, day and electronic access and a progress review in one year; SWO recommendations were considered but not adopted as final.
9 May 2023
Given the children’s young ages and special needs, the mother as the primary and familiar carer should have sole care and control to maintain continuity of care; the mother’s treated depressive condition did not render her unsuitable; the father’s access must be substantial and structured to protect the children’s welfare and promote father‑child relationship; a 12‑month supervision order with staged staying access and clear information‑sharing requirements best serves the children’s interests.
17 Jun 2022
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the Interim Access Order was a permissible interim exercise of judicial discretion pending the custody trial and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; consequently leave to appeal out of time was refused and procedural restriction under Order 59, r.2A(8) was imposed.
30 Mar 2022
The mother’s evidence was accepted as truthful, the father repeatedly contacted and approached the mother with threats and coercive demands, and there was minimal prospect of cooperative decision‑making between the parties; accordingly sole custody and sole care and control were necessary for the children’s best interests, limited supervised in‑person access at a specialist co‑parenting centre plus regular facilitated video contact were ordered, the non‑molestation order was continued and an authorization of arrest attached and extended for six months to protect the mother and children.
30 Mar 2022
Given the child's settled and stable care with the father’s family, the mother's persistent non‑cooperation with social welfare and failure to produce ordered psychiatric evidence, and the child's expressed wish to remain in current arrangements, the court concluded the child's best interests are met by awarding the father sole custody, limiting maternal access to supervised/digital contact only and refusing overnight or removal permissions until satisfactory medical evidence is produced.
30 Nov 2021
Having considered the volume and disproportionality of costs, disparity in financial means, documented instances of respondent's delaying tactics, inconsistent positions on relocation, failure to meaningfully challenge the relocation plan at trial, and the respondent's alleged fabrication of a court order (unaddressed by him), the court found exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the usual practice; varied the costs order nisi so respondent contributes 25% of petitioner's costs of and arising out of the relocation application (and related applications), with certificate for coun…
7 Apr 2021
Shared care ordered with the child in the father's care from 6:00pm Thursdays to 10:00am Sundays and in the mother's care otherwise because this arrangement best balances the child's expressed need for more time with his father, the Social Welfare Officer's recommendations, the importance of continuity and stability in schooling and peer network, the practical caregiving capacities of both parents and available family support; a 6-month supervision order and progress report are necessary to monitor adjustment.