Key Facts
- •Welfare proceedings concerning a young girl, D.
- •Parents, B (father) and C (mother), separated after the mother's arrest following videos showing her hitting D.
- •18 months of private law proceedings with cross-applications under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
- •D currently lives with her father, with supervised contact with her mother.
- •Father alleges inappropriate chastisement of D by the mother (supported by CCTV videos).
- •Mother alleges oppressive and controlling behavior by the father, including physical and sexual assault.
Legal Principles
Paramount consideration of the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, Section 1
Civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities).
None explicitly stated, but implied throughout the judgment.
Assessment of witness credibility, considering potential inconsistencies.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Section 91(14) orders to restrict further applications should be used sparingly.
A Local Authority v F and Others [2022] EWFC 127; Re A (A Child) (Supervised Contact) Section 91(14) ) Children Act 1989 Orders) [2021] EWCA Civ 174
Outcomes
D to remain in the father's care.
D is safe and well-cared for with the father; a move to the mother's care risks repetition of abusive behavior.
Supervised contact between D and the mother to continue.
Necessary to protect D given the mother's past behavior; potential for reduction of supervision in the future.
Three-weekly supervised contact between mother and daughter.
Balances the need for frequent contact with practical considerations.
No Section 91(14) order imposed.
While the mother's allegations were largely unfounded, a five-year reservation on further applications to the judge provides sufficient safeguard.
Discharge of the non-molestation order.
Mother's dishonest application; no evidence of ongoing molestation.
Discharge of the prohibited steps order.
No evidence to suggest risk of D being removed from the jurisdiction.