- Everything (34)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (10)
- News (0)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (1)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (23)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- This hearing followed on from that in Re C1 and C2 (Child Arrangements) [2019] EWHC B15 (Fam), involving the same father but a different mother. In this hearing, the mother of these two children, aged six and eight, applied to extend an existing s.91(14) order for a period of five years. Keehan J found that the defects in the father's personality and his character were such that he posed a risk of serious emotional and psychological harm to the mother of these two children, as it had been found to do with regards to the mother of the two children in the earlier hearing. A period of two years would be an appropriate one to give the father the chance to make the changes that he needed to make, for his own benefit, and for the benefit of his children. However, Keehan J regretted that, in the absence of further incidents since 2016, there was no legal basis for making or extending a non-molestation order and that application was dismissed. The mother's application for costs was refused. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free
- The father applied for child arrangements orders in respect of these two children. Pursuant to s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989, the mother applied to prevent the father from making any further Children Act applications without leave of the court. The father was a litigant in person, but also a qualified member of the Bar, and yet his behaviour during the hearing was described by Keehan J as appalling, aggressive, incoherent and intimidating, for example with regard to the expert witness psychologist during cross-examination. This supported the conclusions in her report as to his lack of empathy and narcissistic personality disorder. An order for direct contact would have a devastating impact upon the mother, which would have a serious adverse impact indirectly on the two children. Keehan J was entirely satisfied that it was not in the best interests of either child to have direct contact with the father, and a s.91(14) order was imposed upon him for a period of two years. He was urged to seek professional help. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free
- The father had difficulties with anger management, volatility and aggression. The circuit judge had made a child arrangements order, including orders for supervised contact, non-molestation and prohibited steps, against which the father had, following a course of therapy, unsuccessfully appealed. He now appealed with regard to the fairness of those hearings. Baker LJ found that there had been no indication to the father, a litigant in person, that the court would be making orders in respect of his future contact or concluding the proceedings. The summary dismissal of his appeal had also been wrong. The two hearings together represented an unwarranted infringement of his rights to a fair hearing. Peter Jackson LJ agreed, and the matter was remitted for a further hearing. Judgment, 28/05/2019, free
- The father appealed against an order which prevented him from bringing further applications for contact or residence for three years. The judge had found that the children would suffer emotional harm if required to have direct contact with the father, who had completely lost sight of their welfare. Longmore, Peter Jackson and Coulson LJJ dismissed the appeal. Judgment, 09/04/2019, free
- Mother's appeal against an order granting the father permission to have contact with their two children, despite no formal notice being given to the mother or to the solicitor for the children, was allowed. Judgment, 28/02/2019, free
- Father's application to appeal a section 91(14) order on the bases of bias and a failure by the judge to recuse herself was dismissed. Judgment, 30/11/2018, free
- Mother's applications for 1) termination of the father's parental responsibility in respect of one the children; 2) permission to change the forename and surnames of both children; 3) the making of a s.91(14) order preventing the father from making any application in respect of the children without permission of the court first being obtained, were all allowed. Judgment, 12/10/2018, free
- Father's application for a child arrangements order to be changed so that the children could live with him in Sweden was refused. A s91(14) order was also made. Judgment, 29/03/2018, free
- Mother applied for orders including a child arrangements order (that the children live with her and that there is no contact ordered with Father), a specific issue order (that the children are to be known by different names), a prohibited steps order and a s91 (14) order (restricting Father from making further applications to the court). Judgment, 28/07/2016, free
- Father's appeal against an order that contact with his children should be supervised and an against an order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989. He also challenged an order that the recorder made as to payment of the costs of an independent social worker who was engaged to supervise his contact visits. Judgment, 12/02/2016, free