P (a child) (dismissal of application – abusive applicant), Re
[2023] EWFC 86 (B)
B and C (Children) (Cross allegations of harmful behaviour by parents), Re
13 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 272 (B)
Family Court
A judge decided a little girl should stay with her dad because her mom had hit her. The mom said the dad was mean, but the judge didn't believe her. The mom can still see her daughter, but with a grown-up watching. The judge made sure the mom couldn't easily ask for more changes to who looks after the daughter.
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.