A, B and C (Child Arrangements: Final Order at Dispute Resolution Appointment), Re

A court may make a final child-arrangements order at a Dispute Resolution Appointment where the written evidence and submissions show that further investigation is neither necessary nor proportionate to the children’s welfare. A fact-finding hearing is not required merely because a party seeks one. After recent fully contested proceedings, further investigation will ordinarily require a significant or material change in circumstances. Section 7 reports are permissive and should be ordered only where necessary to resolve a welfare issue. A section 91(14) order may be made where repeated unreasonable applications or litigation justify a period of respite. Such an order requires leave rather than imposing an absolute bar.

The proceedings concerned three children subject to a shared-care order made in 2019 and maintained, with minor variations, after a contested hearing in 2021. The mother later applied to vary the arrangements, obtain a further section 7 report, disclose part of the earlier order to the school and oppose the father’s application for a section 91(14) order. The deputy district judge dealt with the applications at a Dispute Resolution Appointment, refused further investigation and disclosure, dismissed the variation application and imposed a three-year section 91(14) requirement.

On the first appeal, Her Honour Judge Robertson upheld those decisions. The mother appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising the need for updated welfare evidence, the children’s wishes and feelings, procedural fairness, disclosure and the section 91(14) order.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the final order made at the Dispute Resolution Appointment, the refusal of a further section 7 report and the section 91(14) order.
2. A DRA is intended to resolve or narrow issues without a contested final hearing. Under the Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 12B, paragraph 19(3), the court may consider whether the DRA can be used as a final hearing. Consistently with Re C (Children) (Residence Order: Application being dismissed at the Fact Finding Stage) [2012] EWCA Civ 1489, a family judge may conclude proceedings on written evidence and submissions where further investigation would provide no solid advantage to the children.
3. A fact-finding hearing should be held only where findings are necessary, or may be necessary, to determine future child arrangements. After recent fully contested proceedings, further investigation will ordinarily require a significant or material change in circumstances. The developments relied on here did not justify reopening the issues.
4. Section 7 is permissive. A report should not be ordered unless necessary to resolve a welfare issue. The children’s wishes and feelings were relevant but only part of the decision about their care arrangements. The available evidence, earlier investigations and absence of safeguarding concerns entitled the judge to conclude the proceedings without a further report.
5. At a DRA, the judge may assess contested information when deciding whether a full investigation is necessary and proportionate. The limits depend on the disputed issues and proposed outcome. Radical orders may require formal findings, whereas a less radical adjustment may be determined without a fully contested hearing. Critical observations about a party may be made without a separate fact-finding process where they are based on earlier findings and the evidence before the court.
6. The refusal to disclose the 2019 recital to the school was upheld. The judge who made the order was entitled to construe it and concluded that it was not intended to prevent nannies collecting the children during the father’s periods of care.
7. The section 91(14) order was within the judge’s discretion. It was consistent with Practice Direction 12B, paragraph 13A, and Re A (A Child) (Supervised Contact) (s 91(14) Children Act 1989 Orders) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749, because the circumstances included repeated unreasonable applications and the children’s need for a break from litigation. The order required leave before further applications and was not an absolute prohibition.
8. The Court declined to endorse the description of the applications as res judicata. Re B (Children Act Proceedings) (Issue Estoppel) [1997] 1 FLR 285 confirmed that there is no strict issue-estoppel rule binding parties in children’s cases, while recognising the court’s discretion to control the scope and procedure of further inquiry.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2025] EWCA Civ 55: appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the final order made at the Dispute Resolution Appointment, including the refusal of a further section 7 report, refusal of disclosure and the three-year section 91(14) order.
• Central Family Court — judgment of Her Honour Judge Robertson, handed down 26 July 2024: first appeal dismissed and the deputy district judge’s decisions upheld.
• Central Family Court — deputy district judge’s order, reasons handed down 22 January 2024: variation, section 7 and disclosure applications dismissed; section 91(14) order made for three years.