X v Y

In private children proceedings, the court may proceed without a parent who fails to attend where the case has been substantially delayed, the available written and professional evidence is extensive, and the absent parent has had a fair opportunity to present their case. Contact may be refused where domestic abuse and continuing coercive control create a significant risk of emotional harm to the children. Parental responsibility may be terminated where it is effectively inconceivable that an application for parental responsibility would now succeed, and where no aspect of that responsibility could presently or foreseeably benefit the child. The decision must remain proportionate and welfare-focused. A s.91(14) restriction may be imposed for a proportionate period to protect children and the resident parent from further litigation.

The mother sought orders concerning twin children aged seven, including that they live with her, have no direct or indirect contact with the father, that his parental responsibility be removed, that their surname be changed, and that a restriction under s.91(14) be imposed. The father was serving a custodial sentence for coercive and controlling behaviour towards the mother. He did not attend the final hearing after refusing to travel from prison and was not represented. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned, whether contact would harm the children, whether parental responsibility should be terminated, whether the surname should be changed, and whether a restriction on further applications was justified.

1. The hearing proceeded. The court refused to adjourn despite the father’s non-attendance. The proceedings had already lasted several years, the court had extensive evidence from the parties and professionals, and the father had had repeated opportunities to present his case in writing. Proceeding was compatible with a fair trial.
2. Contact. Applying the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, including the general principle in section 1(2A), the court concluded that any direct or indirect contact would cause the children significant emotional harm. The father’s conviction, lack of remorse or insight, continuing high risk assessment, and coercive behaviour towards the mother were decisive. No contact was ordered.
3. Parental responsibility. The relevant question was whether, if the father were now applying for parental responsibility, the application would be granted and whether parental responsibility could be exercised for the children’s benefit. Attachment, commitment, proportionality, and the children’s welfare were relevant. In this exceptional case, the children had no substantive relationship with the father, and his continuing involvement would perpetuate fear and intimidation. Removal of parental responsibility was proportionate. The children’s Article 8 rights took precedence over the father’s conflicting rights.
4. Other orders. The application to change the children’s surname was refused because it would not improve safety and might undermine their identity and life-story work. A s.91(14) order was made for five years, rather than for the whole of the children’s minority.
5. Case management. In private law proceedings involving a parent convicted of significant domestic abuse, further fact-finding and extensive oral evidence may be unnecessary. Under FPR 22.1, the court may control and limit evidence and cross-examination. Time estimates must be proportionate to the issues requiring determination.