RK v SV

In private-law children proceedings, parental status has significance only insofar as it contributes to the child’s welfare. The child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration, assessed through the welfare checklist. A settled care arrangement should not be displaced merely to vindicate a parent’s role where the proposed change would harm the child. Contact with an absent parent should nevertheless be actively promoted where the evidence shows that it benefits the child. An order restricting further applications under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 is exceptional and should be used sparingly, but may be justified where continuing litigation would harm the child’s welfare.

The father sought the return of the parties’ seven-year-old son from India and either residence with him or residence with the mother, together with greater contact. The mother sought continuation of the existing arrangements, under which the child lived in India with maternal family members and had contact with her and the father during visits to England. The child was joined and represented by a Guardian.

The court considered the child’s welfare, the parents’ proposals, the effect of the existing arrangements on the child’s relationship with his father, and whether a section 91(14) order should restrict further applications.

1. Welfare and residence. The court treated the child’s welfare as paramount and applied the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. Consistently with Re B [2009] UKSC 5, parenthood had significance only as a contributor to welfare. The child was settled in India, doing well educationally and physically, and wished to remain there. Returning him to either parent would cause substantial upheaval. The father’s residence proposals were insufficiently developed, unrealistic and not in the child’s best interests.
2. Promotion of contact. The evidence of observed contact demonstrated a warm and beneficial relationship between the child and his father. Contact therefore had to be promoted despite the history of parental conflict. The mother was directed to bring the child to England during specified holiday periods, with weekly contact of at least five hours during those visits. Existing telephone or electronic contact was to continue, alongside contact with the wider paternal family.
3. Support for arrangements. The parents were directed to attend a Separated Parents Information Programme. An order under section 11H of the Children Act 1989 was made to monitor contact for one year.
4. Section 91(14). Applying the guidelines in Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) [1999] 2 FLR 573, helpfully summarised in PM v MB & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 969, the power was treated as exceptional, a remedy of last resort, and one to be exercised carefully and sparingly. Although the father’s application had been justified, continuing applications would harm the child through their effect on the mother. A section 91(14) order was therefore made until 1 December 2015.