P (a child) (dismissal of application – abusive applicant), Re
[2023] EWFC 86 (B)
E v Y
27 November 2024
[2024] EWFC 348
Family Court
A dad was very mean to his kids' mom and kept going to court to bother her, even though a judge already said he was abusive. The judge finally told the dad to stop going to court for a long time and that he couldn't see the kids directly because it wasn't safe for them or their mom. The judge did this to protect the mom and kids from the dad's bad behavior.
Key Facts
- •Proceedings concerning two children (aged 9 and 4) whose parents separated shortly after the younger child's birth.
- •Father made numerous applications, including for non-molestation orders, and engaged in extensive litigation.
- •A fact-finding hearing resulted in serious findings of abuse against the father, including threats to kill the mother.
- •Father repeatedly challenged court orders, judges' decisions, and made numerous applications, including for recusal.
- •Father's litigation conduct was described as difficult, rude, unboundaried, and designed to intimidate and undermine the mother.
- •Father consistently refused to engage with court-ordered assessments or participate fully in hearings.
- •Father's application to adjourn the final hearing was based on medical reasons (anxiety, depression) and various legal challenges.
- •The final hearing proceeded without the father's attendance, with the judge refusing the adjournment based on the father's persistent litigation conduct.
- •Cafcass officer reported children were doing well in mother's care and had no safeguarding concerns.
Legal Principles
Children Act 1989: paramount consideration is the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989
Presumption of parental involvement furthering child welfare unless contrary shown.
Children Act 1989
Court to have regard to the principle that delay prejudices child welfare.
Children Act 1989
Court can limit parental responsibility where child welfare requires.
H v A [2015] EWFC 58
Practice Direction 12J applies in cases of domestic abuse and harm.
Practice Direction 12J
Family Law Act 1996 governs non-molestation orders.
Family Law Act 1996
Court powers under s91(14) Children Act 1989 are not limited to excessive applications; can be used where welfare demands, particularly where applications are weaponized.
Re A (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749, A v F [2022] EWFC 127
Domestic Abuse Act 2021: s91A Children Act 1989 allows s91(14) orders where applications risk harm to child or other individual.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021
European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 6 (Fair Trial) and 8 (Right to respect for Private and Family Life) considered.
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
No direct contact between father and children.
Unmanageable risk of harm to children and mother due to father's abusive behaviour and continued litigation.
Section 91(14) order prohibiting father from making further Children Act applications until youngest child turns 10.
Exceptional case; father's litigation behaviour designed to undermine mother and perpetuate abuse; order necessary to protect mother and children from harm.
Non-molestation order extended for five years.
Necessary and proportionate to protect mother and children's health, safety, and well-being, given father's behaviour.
Father's applications to challenge court jurisdiction and transfer of proceedings dismissed.
No legal basis or procedural irregularities found; father's behaviour justified transfer to a senior judge.
Father's application to adjourn the final hearing refused.
Father's medical evidence insufficient; his persistent litigation conduct demonstrated his ability to participate.
'Lives with' order made in final terms, granting mother primary residence.
In the children's best interests given the circumstances.