Key Facts
- •Welfare case concerning 5.5-year-old XX.
- •Father (F), a former MP, applied for a Child Arrangements Order (CAO).
- •Mother (M) is now an MP.
- •Previous judgments published with parents' names but child's anonymity preserved.
- •HHJ Williscroft made serious findings of domestic abuse (DA) against F.
- •Four and a half years of ongoing proceedings.
- •F represented himself; M represented by Dr. Proudman; Guardian represented by Mr. Harrill.
- •M withdrew a Declaration of Incompatibility application under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Legal Principles
Welfare checklist in s.1(3) Children Act 1989 (CA) and presumption of parental involvement in s.1(2A) CA.
Children Act 1989
Practice Direction 12J concerning allegations or findings of DA, particularly paragraph 36.
Practice Direction 12J
Section 91(14) orders to prevent repeated or unreasonable applications; consideration of A (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749.
Children Act 1989, s.91(14); A (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749
Outcomes
No direct contact between F and XX; only letterbox contact.
To protect M and XX from further harm and distress given the history of DA and the F's lack of insight into the impact of his actions.
Section 91(14) order made for 3 years.
To give M respite from litigation and the strain it places upon her as XX's primary carer.
XX's surname changed to Griffiths Kniveton (without hyphen).
To avoid airbrushing F out of XX's identity while acknowledging M's preference.
Prohibited steps order preventing F from contacting M and XX, except as specified.
To protect M from further contact with F while allowing for limited communication regarding XX.
No costs order against F.
F was entitled to pursue CAO application; his conduct was not vexatious; it's not in children's best interests to discourage CAO applications except in frivolous cases.