F v A Local Authority & Ors
[2024] EWFC 13 (B)
Z (A Child) (Order for no contact), Re
20 April 2023
[2023] EWFC 61 (B)
Family Court
A dad hurt a child, so the judge said he can't see his own son to keep the son safe. The judge also made sure the dad can't keep asking to see his son because it's bad for everyone involved. The son is with his mom, and she needs to stay safe and protect her son.
Key Facts
- •Father (FF) found to be a paedophile with a sexual interest in children and to have sexually abused a child.
- •Mother (GG) not implicated in abuse; child safe in her care.
- •Dispute concerns father's contact with the child (Z).
- •Father initially refused to engage with a risk assessment, delaying proceedings.
- •Father ultimately conceded to no contact with the child.
- •Rehabilitative work for the father was considered but deemed too costly and with low prospects of success.
- •Family members' uncooperativeness in supervising contact was noted.
- •Mother's relocation and desire for confidentiality were considered.
Legal Principles
Child's welfare is paramount.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3)
Right to family life (Article 8 ECHR); interference must be proportionate.
Article 8 ECHR
Presumption of contact being in child's best interests (s1(2A) Children Act 1989), rebuttable if it puts the child at risk (s1(6)).
Children Act 1989, sections 1(2A) and 1(6)
High justification needed to curtail parent-child contact; only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort.
J-M (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 434; D v E v G [2021] EWFC 37
PD12J FPR 2010 addresses domestic abuse, including risk of abuse, in child arrangements.
PD12J FPR 2010
Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 orders to prevent future applications causing harm.
Children Act 1989, section 91(14); Re P (A Minor) [1999] 2 FLR 573; Re A (A Child) [case citation needed]
Outcomes
No contact order between father and child.
Father's proven paedophilia; lack of engagement with risk reduction; uncooperative family; child's safety paramount.
Section 91(14) order made to prevent future applications for contact.
Further applications would cause harm to child and mother; revisit of issues undesirable.
Child to live with mother under a child arrangements order.
Mother provides safe and good care.
No pressure on local authority to fund father's rehabilitative work.
High cost, work outside proceedings, low prospects of success.