Karima Gadekrab Elsayed Mahmoud v Daniel Glanville & Anor

Where an order under Children Act 1989, s 91(14) is in force, permission to apply for a child arrangements order requires the applicant to show a need for renewed judicial investigation or an arguable case with some chance of success. The applicant must address the conduct that led to the s 91(14) order.

The court may restrict or effectively exclude a parent’s exercise of parental responsibility through prohibited steps and specific issue orders. Such restrictions must be welfare-based, necessary and proportionate. More extensive restrictions are justified only where lesser measures would not adequately protect the child.

The mother applied for permission to apply for a child arrangements order despite an existing order under Children Act 1989, s 91(14). She also sought discharge of a non-molestation order and return of her passport. The father applied to restrict her exercise of parental responsibility, and the child’s Guardian supported protective measures and indirect contact.

The applications followed findings that the mother had repeatedly removed or concealed the child, breached court orders, obstructed the father’s parental responsibility and made unfounded allegations. The child had been recovered and was living with the father. The central issues were whether permission should be granted, whether parental responsibility should be restricted, and what contact and protective orders best served the child’s welfare.

1. Permission to apply. The mother’s application was dismissed. Applying Re S (Permission to Seek Relief) and Re P & N (Children), the court held that an applicant subject to s 91(14) must address the conduct that led to the order and demonstrate either a need for renewed judicial investigation or an arguable case. The mother had not accepted or addressed the earlier findings, showed no meaningful insight or change, and continued to present a serious abduction risk.
2. Parental responsibility. The father’s application was granted. Under s 8 of the Children Act 1989, the court could combine prohibited steps and specific issue orders so as to restrict the mother’s access to information about the child and prevent removal of the child. The restrictions were welfare-based, necessary and proportionate, having regard to the repeated abductions, concealment, unilateral decision-making and continuing risk. The father was not required to consult the mother before exercising parental responsibility.
3. Contact. The court ordered indirect contact through a family communication platform, followed by weekly ten-minute video contact. The father was required to provide appropriately anonymised general updates and serious illness or accident notifications. Progress beyond indirect contact was left to the father’s assessment in the first instance, subject to the child’s welfare and abduction risk.
4. Protective orders and passport. The non-molestation order was extended to 9 July 2029. The mother’s passport was returned because the purpose of its retention had been fulfilled and continued retention would be a significant interference with her rights. The court applied the principle in Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su and Bayer AG v Winter that passport restrictions must last no longer than necessary.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that the mother’s application for permission to appeal earlier decisions of Francis J was refused by Lord Justice Baker on 7 April 2025.