BB v CC

In determining child arrangements, the child’s welfare is paramount. A court may remove parental responsibility where the circumstances show that continued involvement causes significant harm or instability and removal provides a positive welfare benefit. The court must assess the evidence and relevant welfare factors, including the absence of contact, harm to the other parent, the practical exercise of parental responsibility and the effect of continued involvement on the child.

An order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 is an additional filter, not an absolute bar. Its duration must be proportionate. The court may require evidence of engagement with appropriate support services before granting permission for further applications.

The proceedings concerned arrangements for L, aged about two and a half. The father’s application had been transferred to the High Court following concerns about his mental health and conduct. At an earlier fact-finding hearing, the court found that he had sent abusive and threatening correspondence to the mother, her family and her legal representatives, and that his behaviour was coercive: [2024] EWHC 2693 (Fam).

At the final hearing the father did not attend. The court determined his request for recusal, child arrangements, removal of parental responsibility, a section 91(14) restriction and ancillary disclosure issues. The central questions were whether contact was in L’s welfare interests, whether parental responsibility should be removed, and whether future applications should require leave.

The court refused the father’s request for recusal and proceeded in his absence. He knew of the hearing, had been given opportunities to attend and had previously been permitted to participate remotely. Applying the fair-minded and informed observer test, the history of the case and the father’s continuing abusive communications did not establish a real possibility of bias.

1. Child arrangements. L’s welfare was the paramount consideration. Having regard to the welfare checklist, the findings of coercive and abusive behaviour, the absence of an ongoing relationship, the father’s inability to meet L’s needs during earlier supervised contact, his fluctuating mental health and the real risk of harm to L and the mother, the court concluded that contact was not in L’s best interests. L was to live with the mother and there was to be no contact with the father.
2. Parental responsibility. Section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989 permits the court to order that a person who has acquired parental responsibility ceases to have it. The threshold is high, but it was met. Relevant considerations included the lack of contact, significant harm to the mother, the father’s failure to acknowledge the findings, his lack of practical responsibility, the destabilising effect of his continued involvement and the positive welfare benefit of removal. Termination was preferred to merely restricting its exercise.
3. Section 91(14). Applying the statutory considerations, FPR 19A and the guidance in Re P, the court found repeated and unproductive applications, a serious risk to L and the mother, and a need for protection. Proportionality remained essential because the order was an additional filter rather than an absolute bar. The father could not apply in respect of L without leave until she reached 16. Any application required evidence of engagement with mental-health, anger-management and domestic-abuse support services.
4. The mother was permitted to disclose relevant redacted emails to the Child Maintenance Service. The existing non-molestation order remained in force until 28 July 2026.

not stated in the judgment.