PM v CF

When assessing applications concerning children, the court must treat the children’s welfare as paramount and give appropriate weight to the effect of parental conflict and fear on the resident parent’s ability to care for them. A s.91(14) order may exceptionally last for the whole of the children’s minority where there is a continuing and serious risk that further applications would harm the resident parent and, indirectly, the children. The absence of a pre-existing relationship may be significant when deciding whether indirect contact is in the children’s welfare best interests. Contact or welfare information may properly be refused where providing it would expose a highly vulnerable parent to further stress without a corresponding benefit to the children or the applicant.

The mother applied for orders concerning two young children, including termination of the father’s parental responsibility for one child, permission to change both children’s names, and a s.91(14) order preventing further applications without permission. The father accepted those orders in principle after making further admissions, but sought a time-limited order, indirect contact and periodic information about the children. The mother and children’s guardian opposed those requests. The court also considered whether a fact-finding hearing remained necessary after the father’s concessions and revised position.

1. The court held that the children’s welfare was paramount under Children Act 1989, s.1(1), and that it had regard to the welfare checklist in s.1(3). It also considered the parties’ rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. Where the Article 8 rights of a child and parent conflict, the child’s rights prevail.
2. A fact-finding hearing was unnecessary and disproportionate. The father’s concessions and revised position meant that a hearing would serve no useful purpose.
3. The circumstances were truly exceptional. The father presented an assessed risk of serious harm, the mother remained profoundly vulnerable, and the children had been emotionally harmed by exposure to domestic abuse. Any real risk of increasing the mother’s stress could adversely affect the children. In those circumstances, a s.91(14) order for the whole of the children’s respective minorities was required under the welfare analysis. The order was reserved to the judge, and a future application could be made if the father demonstrated sustained change.
4. Indirect contact was refused. There was no pre-existing relationship between the father and the children, and even infrequent letters or cards risked destabilising the mother and thereby harming the children. Information about the children was limited to notification if either child died during childhood, because information about serious illness or injury would impose an unacceptable burden on the mother without ultimate benefit to the father.
5. The court terminated the father’s parental responsibility for A, permitted the children’s forenames and surnames to be changed, and made the s.91(14) order. The father’s application for indirect contact was dismissed.