A Mother (M) v A Father (F) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2580 (Fam)
F v J & Ors
24 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2802 (Fam)
High Court
A dad wanted more time with his baby, but the mom and her wife didn't agree. A judge listened to everyone and decided the dad wouldn't get parental rights, but he would see the baby more and more often as time went on. The judge made sure the mom got support so she didn't feel worried.
Key Facts
- •F (biological father) applied for child arrangements orders and a parental responsibility order for L (11-month-old child).
- •J (biological mother) and B (step-mother with parental responsibility) opposed parental responsibility for F and initially proposed very limited contact.
- •The Guardian initially recommended limited contact, but later revised their position based on evidence.
- •The case involved disputes over parental responsibility, contact arrangements, and indirect contact.
- •The history involved a complex relationship between F, J, and B, including discussions about co-parenting that ultimately failed.
- •Expert evidence was provided by a clinical psychologist (Dr. Pettle) and the Guardian (Allison Baker).
- •The court considered the welfare checklist and relevant case law (Re H (Parental Responsibility) [1988] 1 FLR 855).
Legal Principles
Child arrangements orders and parental responsibility orders must be made in accordance with the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, section 1
When considering a parental responsibility order under s.12(2A) of the Children Act, the court should consider the proposed contact order.
Children Act 1989, s.12(2A)
Factors relevant to parental responsibility applications include the applicant's commitment to the child, the degree of attachment, and the reasons for the application.
Re H (Parental Responsibility) [1988] 1 FLR 855
Outcomes
F was not granted parental responsibility.
The court balanced the benefits of contact with the risk of destabilizing J and prioritized J's need for security, noting the specific issue orders in place.
A child arrangements order was made granting contact between F and L.
The order followed the Guardian's revised recommendation, starting with contact every 8 weeks for 1 hour, increasing in frequency and duration over time.
Specific issue orders were made requiring J and B to notify F about significant issues concerning L.
This aimed to keep F informed and mitigate J's concerns about F's intentions.
Indirect contact was ordered every 4 weeks when direct contact is every 8 weeks.
This was a compromise between the parties' proposals to balance the need for indirect contact with the avoidance of unnecessary disruption.