M v F & Ors
[2023] EWFC 246 (B)
P v P & Ors
23 August 2024
[2024] EWFC 347 (B)
Family Court
Two parents couldn't agree on where their 8-year-old should go to school. The judge decided the long commute wasn't good for her, so she'll go to a closer school. To stop the arguing, the judge also made a rule that they can't keep going to court unless they have a really good reason. The judge also said both parents need to share the cost of therapy.
Key Facts
- •Three children, S (14), D (12), and M (8), with varying additional needs.
- •Father has not seen S and D since November 2022 but maintains contact with M.
- •Extensive history of applications, cross-applications, and allegations between parents.
- •Dispute centers on M's schooling: mother wants her closer to home in C, father wants her to remain in B.
- •M is thriving in her current school in B but the commute from C is long.
- •Experts (independent social worker and psychologist) involved, providing evidence.
- •Significant agreement reached between parties on other issues (S's education, D's school change).
- •Concerns about the impact of ongoing litigation on the children's well-being.
- •Guardian supports concluding proceedings and recommends a Section 91(14) direction.
- •Father opposes concluding proceedings and M changing schools.
- •Mother supports concluding proceedings and M changing schools.
- •Appeal against case management decision to proceed on submissions was lodged and rejected.
Legal Principles
Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
Children Act 1989, Section 1(1)
Section 91(14) orders should be used sparingly and only where the child's welfare requires it.
Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) [1999] 2 FLR 573
Section 91(14) orders can be used to protect children from the harmful effects of protracted litigation, even without a history of excessive applications.
Re A (A Child) [2021] EWCA 1179
Costs orders in Children Act proceedings are exceptional and should only be made where a party's conduct has been unreasonable.
Re G (Official Solicitors’ costs) [1982] 3 FLR 340; Re R (A Minor) [1996] EWCA 1120
The court should consider whether a shared lives order is appropriate, balancing the benefits of both parents' involvement with potential harm.
AZ v BX (Child Arrangements order) (Appeal) [2024] EWHC 1528
The court should take all steps to ensure a child has a relationship with both parents unless it would cause significant harm.
Re P [1996] 2 FLR 314; Re C [2011] EWCA Civ 521; Re T [2002] EWCA Civ 1736
Outcomes
M will change schools to a school in C.
The current commute is unsustainable, and a local school meets M's needs. While M is thriving in her current school, the long-term impact of the commute outweighs the benefits of remaining there.
Section 91(14) order imposed for 12 months for D and until October 2025 for S.
To protect children from the harmful effects of ongoing litigation and provide a period of stability for therapy to commence. It acts as a filter not a complete bar to future applications.
No order as to costs for the application of 20 October 2023.
The court is not satisfied that the threshold for a costs order has been met. Making such an order would likely exacerbate tensions and hinder cooperation between parents.
Shared lives order made for M.
To reflect the importance of both parents in M's life and maintain her positive relationship with her father.
Parents to share costs of experts' attendance at June hearing and therapy.
To ensure fairness and facilitate the progress of therapy.