A Mother v A Father

In determining a child’s welfare, nationality, cultural heritage, religious beliefs, geographical connections and familial ties may all be relevant, but none is automatically decisive. The court must assess the child’s welfare as a whole and must not prefer this jurisdiction or English values merely because proceedings are taking place here.

A no-contact order may be made where parental involvement presents substantial risks, including abduction, isolation or control, and where the parent cannot be trusted to comply with court orders. Such an order is protective, not punitive. Indirect contact is not automatic and may also be prohibited where it would facilitate surveillance, manipulation or removal.

Financial orders under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 require consideration of all relevant financial circumstances and the child’s needs.

The proceedings concerned a seven-year-old child who had been taken to the father’s country of origin and remained there for approximately two years despite repeated return orders. The mother returned to England, obtained extensive protective and financial orders, and was eventually able to bring the child back to England from a neighbouring country.

The father was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with return orders. At the final hearing the court considered the child’s long-term living arrangements, contact with the father, protection against removal and harassment, wardship, restriction of future applications, and a lump-sum application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

The central issues were whether the child should live with the mother, whether contact with the father was safe, whether wardship remained necessary, and whether the mother should receive the available sale proceeds for the child’s benefit.

1. The court ordered that the child live with the mother until the age of 18. The child was thriving in her care, and she was best placed to meet his welfare needs.

2. The welfare assessment was comprehensive. Cultural, national, religious and familial connections were relevant, but no preference could be given to this jurisdiction or to English values. The child’s welfare remained paramount.

3. A no-contact order, including indirect contact, was necessary and proportionate. The father had repeatedly disobeyed court orders, had isolated the child from the mother, had made threats and presented substantial abduction and control risks. The order was not punishment for contempt. It was required because safe parental involvement could not presently be achieved.

4. Indirect contact was not automatic. Applying the reasoning in F v M [2023] EWFC 5, its benefits had to be weighed against the risk that it would be used to locate the child, undermine the mother or facilitate removal.

5. Protective orders were made, including prohibited-steps, port-alert, specific-issue and non-molestation orders. The child’s wardship was discharged because its protective purpose had ended and continued court control would hinder ordinary parental care.

6. A lump sum of £75,000, or the available sale proceeds if lower, was ordered under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for the child’s benefit. Future applications were made subject to a five-year direction under section 91(14), with permission required before service.