GB (Parental Alienation: Welfare), Re
[2024] EWFC 168 (B)
DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child))
30 January 2024
[2024] EWFC 12 (B)
Family Court
A dad was abusive to his child's mom, even raping her. The court decided the dad can't see his son because it's unsafe, and the mom can change the son's last name. The dad has to pay the mom's legal bills for the court case.
Key Facts
- •DG applied for a Section 8 order for contact with his son, EMP, in April 2019.
- •A fact-finding hearing concluded with findings of DG's abusive behavior towards KB (EMP's mother), including rape, and inappropriate parenting.
- •DG denies all findings and blames KB for EMP's negative view of him.
- •KB and the Children's Guardian (CG2) recommend no contact between EMP and DG.
- •EMP strongly expresses feeling unsafe with DG and desires no contact.
- •KB applied to limit or revoke DG's parental responsibility and change EMP's surname to hers.
Legal Principles
Child's welfare is paramount in Child Arrangements Orders.
Children Act 1989, Section 1
Presumption of parental involvement unless contrary shown.
Children Act 1989, Sections 1(2A), 1(2B)
Practice Direction 12J concerning domestic abuse and child welfare.
Practice Direction 12J
Section 91(14) orders to prevent harassment and further abuse.
Children Act 1989, Section 91(14)
High bar for terminating contact; only in exceptional circumstances.
Re C (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) [2011] EWCA Civ 521
Parental responsibility is not simply a formality; it includes duties and responsibilities.
Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999
Wide discretion on costs in Children Act proceedings, but generally not awarded unless reprehensible conduct.
A Mother v A Father [2023] EWFC 105
Termination of parental responsibility requires solid grounds and welfare consideration.
Re P (Terminating Parental Responsibility) [1995] 1 FLR 1048
Court must consider whether making an order is better than no order.
Children Act 1989, Section 1(5)
Practice Direction 3A concerning vulnerable persons.
Practice Direction 3A
Outcomes
Live with order for EMP with KB.
In EMP's best interest, given DG's abusive behavior and lack of acceptance of findings.
No contact order between EMP and DG.
Significant risk of harm to EMP and KB from continued contact, given DG's abusive behavior and denial of wrongdoing.
Section 91(14) order preventing DG from making further applications without leave until EMP's 16th birthday.
To protect EMP and KB from further harassment and trauma caused by ongoing litigation; proportionate response to DG's behavior and the significant harm already caused.
Permission for EMP to use KB's surname.
In EMP's best interest considering the serious abuse perpetrated by DG and the lack of tangible connection with DG's family due to his actions.
Revocation of DG's parental responsibility.
Proportionate to protect EMP and KB from further harm; DG's behavior demonstrates a lack of fitness to exercise parental responsibility, particularly given the no-contact order.
DG to pay £30,000 (plus VAT) towards KB's costs for the fact-finding hearing.
DG's unreasonable conduct and denial of his abusive behavior contributed significantly to the costs. This is a just outcome given the findings against him.
KB's application for costs against Cafcass dismissed.
Insufficient evidence and material provided at the final hearing to consider the application. No timely application made prior.