D v E (Termination of Parental Responsibility)

Factual and Procedural Background

The court considered multiple applications concerning the welfare of a child, hereafter "G", born in 2012 and currently aged 8. The applications before the court at the final hearing included: a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989; a specific issue order to change G's surname under the same section; an application to terminate the father's parental responsibility under section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989; and an application by the Children's Guardian for an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

The father has a prolonged pattern of non-engagement with the proceedings, having failed to attend the final hearing and multiple previous hearings despite being given notice and directions by the court, including during a video hearing from prison. The father has not filed evidence or responded to correspondence despite contact details being provided. The court determined it appropriate to proceed in his absence.

The parents separated in 2014 when G was 16 months old. The father was named on G's birth certificate. Previous proceedings involved concerns about the father's mental health, allegations of harassment, domestic violence, and coercive control, which he denied and no findings were made. A child arrangements order in 2014 provided for unsupervised contact, progressing to overnight contact.

The father has a significant offending history including harassment, sexual offences against a child, dangerous driving, battery, breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and harassment of a former partner. He has been convicted and incarcerated multiple times between 2014 and 2020. The mother ceased contact between the father and G in 2015 based on police and Children’s Services advice. G has had no contact with her father since then and has no recollection of him.

Risk assessments from the Probation Service conclude the father poses a risk of sexual grooming and emotional and physical harm to children aged 13-15 and to intimate partners, particularly ex-partners. The father has not engaged in any therapeutic or rehabilitative work to address his offending behaviour or mitigate risks.

The Children's Guardian recommended discharging the previous child arrangements order, no contact between G and the father, and supports changing G's surname to that of the mother. The Guardian also supports restricting the father's ability to make further applications without court permission due to the risk of harassment and disruption.

The mother contends that refusal of the applications would expose both herself and G to further harm and instability. The father opposes the applications but has not taken steps to pursue contact or other relief.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether to make a child arrangements order providing for no contact between G and the father pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
2. Whether to make a specific issue order to change G's surname pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
3. Whether to terminate the father's parental responsibility for G pursuant to section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989.
4. Whether to grant an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 restricting the father's ability to make further applications without court permission.

Arguments of the Parties

Mother's Arguments

• The mother argues that granting the applications is in G’s best interests to protect both G and herself from further harm and instability caused by the father’s history and behaviour.
• She supports discharging the previous child arrangements order and terminating the father's parental responsibility due to the risk he poses and his lack of engagement.
• The mother supports changing G’s surname to reflect the reality of G’s lived experience and identity.

Children's Guardian's Arguments

• The Children's Guardian recommends no contact between G and the father due to the father’s offending history and assessed risk of harm to G and the mother.
• The Guardian supports changing G’s surname to the mother’s surname and highlights the need for support to manage identity issues arising from the lack of relationship with the father.
• The Guardian no longer opposes termination of the father’s parental responsibility, accepting the correct legal test.
• The Guardian seeks an order under section 91(14) to restrict the father from making further applications without permission, to prevent harassment and protect G and the mother from disruption.

Father's Position

• The father opposes the mother’s applications and has expressed an intention to seek contact and pursue legal advice but has taken no steps to do so.
• He did not attend the final hearing and has not filed evidence or otherwise engaged with the proceedings despite multiple opportunities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re C (Direct Contact: Suspension) [2011] 2 FLR 912	Principles on child welfare and contact orders, including that contact should only be terminated in exceptional circumstances where contact is detrimental to welfare.	Used to confirm that contact should be promoted unless it is detrimental to the child's welfare, applying a rebuttable presumption in favour of contact.
Re W (Direct Contact) [2013] 1 FLR 494	Principles on child welfare and contact, emphasizing the importance of the child's welfare as paramount.	Referenced regarding the positive obligation to promote contact and the factors to consider in contact decisions.
Re J-M (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 434	Further principles on contact and child welfare, including the necessity of taking all reasonable steps to facilitate contact.	Supported the court’s approach to balancing welfare and contact obligations.
Dawson v Wearmouth [1997] 2 FLR 629; [1999] 1 FLR 1167	Legal test for changing a child's surname, emphasizing the importance of the child's welfare and all relevant circumstances.	Applied to determine that changing G’s surname is in her best interests, weighing factors including identity and future impact.
Re W, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999] 2 FLR 930; [2001] Fam 1	Factors to consider on surname change applications, including welfare checklist and future considerations.	Guided the court’s evaluation of the surname change application.
Re D (Withdrawal of Parental Responsibility) [2015] 1 FLR 166	Clarified legal test for termination of parental responsibility, emphasizing welfare as paramount and the "no order" principle.	Used to assess whether termination of the father’s parental responsibility is justified and in G’s best interests.
Re P (Terminating Parental Responsibility) [1995] 1 FLR 1048	Set out considerations for terminating parental responsibility, including attachment and commitment.	Supported the court’s conclusion on the father’s lack of commitment and attachment to G.
CW v SG (Parental Responsibility Consequential Orders) [2013] EWHC 854 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 655	Endorsed approach to termination of parental responsibility considering welfare and lack of beneficial exercise of responsibility.	Applied to confirm that termination of parental responsibility is appropriate given the father’s circumstances.
Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 and related cases (Re P, Re G, Re S, Re B, S v B & Newport City Council: Re K, Stringer v Stringer)	Principles for restricting further applications to court without permission, balancing welfare and litigant’s rights.	Supported the imposition of a restriction on the father’s ability to make applications without leave until G is 16 years old.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully applied the legal principles governing child arrangements orders, specific issue orders for surname changes, termination of parental responsibility, and restrictions on further applications under the Children Act 1989.

Regarding contact, the court acknowledged the statutory presumption favoring parental involvement but found it rebutted by the father’s extensive offending history, the assessed risk of harm to G and the mother, and the absence of any relationship or contact between G and the father. The court concluded that contact would be detrimental to G's welfare and that no alternative less restrictive order would adequately protect her and her mother.

On the surname change, the court weighed the importance of the biological link against the reality that G has only known the mother’s surname, identifies with the mother’s family, and faces potential stigma due to the father’s notoriety. The court found a surname change would improve G’s welfare.

In considering termination of parental responsibility, the court applied the correct legal test, focusing on welfare, attachment, and commitment. It found no attachment or commitment by the father, no evidence of rehabilitation or engagement, and a significant risk that parental responsibility would be used to control the mother, thus justifying termination.

Finally, the court considered the application under section 91(14) to restrict the father’s ability to make further applications without permission. Although the father had no history of unmeritorious applications, the court found the serious risk of harm and disruption justified this exceptional order. The restriction was deemed proportionate and necessary to protect G and the mother from unacceptable strain, lasting until G reaches 16 years old.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED all applications made by the mother and the Children's Guardian as follows:

• A child arrangements order was made providing that G will live with the mother and discharging the previous child arrangements order of December 2014, with no contact between G and the father.
• A specific issue order was granted to change G’s surname from a compound surname including the father’s name to the mother’s surname alone.
• An order was made terminating the father’s parental responsibility for G.
• An order pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 was made, preventing the father from making further applications under the Act without the court’s permission until G reaches the age of 16.

The direct effect is to sever the father's legal rights and responsibilities towards G and to protect G and the mother from potential harm and disruption arising from the father's history and behaviour. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applied settled legal principles to the facts of this case.