Family Court Limits Father's Involvement in Child's Welfare Amid Domestic Abuse Allegations: DG v KB & Anor Case Analysis

Citation: [2024] EWFC 12 (B)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child)): 2024, the Family Court in Carlisle deals with a complex matter involving child arrangements under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, centered around the welfare of a child, EMP. His Honour Judge C Baker presided over the case, delivering a judgment that considers several critical aspects of Family Law, including contact orders, parental responsibility, and costs applications. This article dissects the legal principles applied in the judgment, outlining the rationale behind the decisions made.

Key Facts

The case pertains to a child, EMP, and addresses applications and responses made by his parents regarding contact arrangements, changes to his surname, and the exercise of parental responsibility. The father, DG, sought to have contact with EMP, while the mother, KB, opposed this on the grounds of past abusive behavior and rape allegations against DG.

A fact-finding hearing was conducted prior to the welfare hearing. Substantial findings against DG included instances of abusive behavior that were not considered to be sexual or physically harmful but were deemed inappropriate. The court’s findings detailed a conflict between the parents’ views of each other, which greatly influenced EMP’s view of his father. It also found that DG had not only withheld financial contributions towards EMP’s upbringing to pressure KB regarding contact but had also raped KB in March 2017.

The legal principles applied revolve around the welfare of the child, with the court adhering to the ‘welfare checklist’ under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, and the presumption that involvement of the parent will further the child’s welfare, outlined in sections 1(2A) and 1(2B).

The judgment takes into account the Practice Direction 12J regarding child arrangements and contact orders in the context of domestic abuse, and Practice Directions 3A and 3AA concerning the participation of vulnerable persons in court proceedings.

The court considers the case law, as detailed in “R v R (Costs: Child case)” and “London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2)”, when determining costs issues, leaning towards the idea that costs should not usually be awarded in Children Act cases unless there is irresponsible litigation behavior.

The judge also makes reference to the case “A Mother v A Father” for a comprehensive overview of costs in Family Court proceedings, coming to the conclusion that such costs are warranted in situations where parties have engaged in unreasonable conduct.

Outcomes

The court made a ‘live with’ child arrangements order favoring KB, with no contact ordered between EMP and his father, DG. Additionally, a section 91(14) order was made against DG, prohibiting further applications regarding EMP without leave of the court until the child turns 16.

The court permitted a change in EMP’s surname from his father’s to his mother’s, aligning with EMP’s wishes and the mother’s submissions.

In a landmark decision regarding parental responsibility, the court revoked DG’s parental responsibility for EMP, citing the father’s behavior and its indirect harm to both KB and EMP.

Regarding costs, the court ordered DG to pay a contribution towards KB’s legal costs for the fact-finding hearing, setting the amount at £30,000 plus VAT following a summary assessment.

The mother’s late application for costs against Cafcass was not granted further directions, highlighting the importance of the finality of proceedings and the efficient use of court resources.

Conclusion

This case underscores the court’s commitment to the welfare of children in family disputes, particularly in the context of domestic abuse. By applying prevailing legal principles, the judgment prioritizes the safety and best interests of the child, EMP, while asserting the need for finality in protracted litigation. The decisions to restrict the father’s involvement stem from the court’s findings of his harmful behavior towards both the child and the mother. The judgment elucidates the careful balancing act performed by the Family Court when upholding the welfare of a child against the background of domestic abuse and parental conflict.