Family Court Balances Parental Rights and Children's Welfare in Re: George & Ors [2023] EWFC 191

Citation: [2023] EWFC 191
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Re: George & Ors [2023] EWFC 191, the Family Court has made several important determinations regarding child arrangements, enforcement of contact orders, applications under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, family assistance orders, non-molestation orders, and the conduct of parties in family proceedings. The case highlights the balance between parental rights and responsibilities and the paramountcy of children’s welfare in private law children proceedings. This article seeks to analyse the key topics and legal principles applied by Mr Recorder Adrian Jack in this case.

Key Facts

The case concerned four children whose father sought joint custody and enforcement of contact orders against the mother. The mother counter-applied, seeking an order under Section 91(14) to prevent further applications without court approval and a family assistance order. She also invited the court to issue a non-molestation order based on the father’s behavior. Mr Phillips, an independent social worker, was called to assess the father’s parenting but was subsequently complained about by the father to his professional body. The father’s submissions were unduly lengthy and in violation of the court’s directions, which resulted in orders for costs against him.

Child Arrangements and Welfare Checklist

The case reaffirmed the court’s approach to child arrangements, emphasizing the children’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration in accordance with Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. The court applied the welfare checklist, considering the children’s needs, the likely effect of change, the capability of the parents to meet the needs, and risks of harm to the children.

Enforcement and Compliance with Court Orders

The court declined to adjudicate the father’s enforcement application, finding that punitive measures against the mother were not in the children’s best interests nor proportionate.

Section 91(14) Application

The court made a Section 91(14) order, precluding the father from making further applications for five years without permission. The court applied the principles from M v F [2023] EWFC 5 and considered the new legislative landscape introduced by Section 91A of the Children Act 1989, which allows for such orders when an application would put a child or parent at risk of harm.

Family Assistance Order

The application for a family assistance order was refused, as the court found no advantages to further local authority involvement and underlined the intrusive nature of state interference in family life, adhering to the principles established in Re E (Family Assistance Order) [1999] 2 FLR 512.

Non-Molestation Order

A non-molestation order was granted on the court’s motion for one year due to the father’s behavior, rooted in the court’s protective jurisdiction under Section 42(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1996.

Contempt of Court

The father’s complaints against the professionals involved in the case without court permission raised issues of confidentiality and potential contempt under Section 12(1)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989. The court issued an injunction against the father to prevent further disclosures and complaints without permission.

Costs

The court took the unusual step of awarding costs against the father due to his serious misconduct, breach of confidentiality, and failure to comply with the court’s directions regarding submissions length.

Outcomes

The court’s determinations were as follows:

  • The father’s application for joint care was dismissed.
  • Supervised contact was ordered to take place at the maternal grandparents’ home for up to three hours once a month.
  • A Section 91(14) order was made for five years.
  • The request for a family assistance order was denied.
  • A one-year non-molestation order was granted.
  • The complaint against Mr Phillips was ordered to be withdrawn, and no permission was granted for making such complaints without the court’s approval.
  • The father was ordered to pay resulting costs for the excessive length of submissions and breach of confidentiality.
  • The father’s application for permission to appeal was refused.

Conclusion

Re: George & Ors [2023] EWFC 191 showcases the court’s ongoing commitment to place the welfare of children above all in family proceedings, to control abusive litigation practices, and to manage the conduct of parties to protect the interests of children and the parties involved. The case sets out clear guidelines for the application of section 91(14), the use of non-molestation orders, and the implications of conduct in family proceedings, especially in relation to the pursuit of appeals and complaints against professionals. This case acts as a reminder of the stringent standards expected in the conduct of family litigation and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to those standards.