P (a child) (dismissal of application – abusive applicant), Re
[2023] EWFC 86 (B)
George & Ors, Re
3 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 191 (B)
Family Court
A dad fought hard for more time with his kids, but acted badly towards his ex and was found to be unsafe with the children. The judge gave him limited supervised visits and stopped him from making more court applications for five years to protect the mom and the children.
Key Facts
- •Father's application for child arrangements order (June 2019) encompassing four children born to the parties.
- •Father's application for enforcement against mother for breaching contact orders (June 2023).
- •Mother's application for a section 91(14) order to prevent further applications by the father without court permission (June 2023).
- •Mother's application for a family assistance order against the local authority (June 2023).
- •Mother's request for a non-molestation order against the father (during the hearing).
- •Father's complaint to Social Work England against independent social worker, David Phillips (September 2023).
- •Father's complaint to the mother's counsel's chambers (October 2023).
- •Father's excessive length of written submissions (16,469 words).
- •Eldest child, George, diagnosed with severe autism.
- •Parties never lived together; children always lived with mother.
- •Father's belief system characterized as rigid and misogynistic (per District Judge Jabbitt's assessment).
Legal Principles
Paramountcy principle in child arrangements orders.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3)
Section 91(14) orders to prevent further applications without court permission.
Children Act 1989, section 91(14); Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 67; Re A (A Child) (Supervised Contact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749; M v F [2023] EWFC 5.
Family assistance orders under section 16 of the Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989, section 16; Re E (Family Assistance Order) [1999] 2 FLR 512.
Non-molestation orders under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996.
Family Law Act 1996, section 42(2)(b)
Contempt of court for breaching confidentiality in proceedings held in private.
Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12(1)(b); Children Act 1989, section 97(2)
Overriding objective in court proceedings.
WWRT Ltd v Carosan Trading Ltd [2021] ECSCJ No 784.
Outcomes
Father's application for joint care dismissed.
Unrealistic given the mother's wishes, significant risks to children's safety in father's unsupervised care, and lack of prospect of change in father's parenting approach.
Supervised contact at maternal grandparents' home for up to three hours once a month ordered.
Balances father's desire for contact with children's safety and well-being, considering the risks associated with unsupervised contact.
Section 91(14) order granted for five years.
To protect children and mother from further litigation given father's behavior and unwillingness to accept court decisions.
Family assistance order refused.
Little advantage to children; minimal need for continued local authority involvement.
Non-molestation order granted for one year.
To protect mother from father's harassment.
Father's application for retrospective permission to complain about Mr. Phillips refused.
Complaint was a serious breach of confidentiality; no merit to allegations against Mr. Phillips.
Injunction granted preventing father from making further complaints without court permission.
To prevent further breaches of confidentiality and intimidation of witnesses.
Costs awarded against father for excessive written submissions.
Unreasonable behavior leading to additional costs for other parties.
Mother's costs awarded.
Proportionate given the work undertaken.
Permission to appeal refused.
No arguable grounds of appeal identified.