X (father) v Y (mother)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the welfare of a five-year-old child ("the Child") who has not had face-to-face contact with her father ("the Father") since December 2021 and whose indirect contact by video calls was terminated by the mother ("the Mother") in January 2024. The proceedings have been protracted and acrimonious, with a complex litigation history including fact-finding hearings, protective orders, and consolidated Children Act and Family Law Act proceedings.

The parents separated in October 2021, with divorce proceedings initiated shortly thereafter. Protective orders were made by consent in early 2022, followed by further non-molestation orders and contested contact applications. A split fact-finding hearing addressing allegations of domestic abuse took place over four days in October 2023, with judgment delivered in November 2023.

The fact-finding hearing resulted in serious findings of sexual abuse by the Father against the Mother during 2015-2017 but rejected allegations of controlling or coercive behaviour during the relationship. The Mother opposes all forms of contact and seeks orders including a change of the Child’s surname, restrictions on the Father’s parental responsibility, a long-term barring order under s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989, a non-molestation injunction, and costs. The Father, representing himself, seeks immediate shared care on an alternating week basis without preparatory support or a perpetrator programme.

The court received extensive documentary evidence, heard oral evidence from both parents and the CAFCASS officer, and considered multiple reports and transcripts. The court also addressed the breakdown of indirect video contact and additional allegations raised during the hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What are the appropriate child arrangements for the Child?
2. Should a s.91(14) Children Act order be made against the Father or both parents, restricting future applications without court permission?
3. Should the Child’s surname be changed from the Father’s surname to the Mother’s?
4. Should prohibited steps orders limiting the Father’s exercise of parental responsibility be made, and if so, to what extent?
5. Is a non-molestation injunction necessary for the protection of the Mother, and if so, in what terms and duration?
6. Should there be any order for costs against either party?

Arguments of the Parties

Mother's Arguments

• The risks posed by the Father to herself and the Child, based on findings of sexual abuse and his lack of insight or acceptance, warrant extinguishing his role in the Child’s life.
• Opposes any form of direct contact and seeks orders including a change of surname, significant restrictions on the Father’s parental responsibility, a s.91(14) barring order until the Child is 16, a ten-year non-molestation injunction, and costs of £182,568.
• Criticizes the quality and conduct of indirect contact, alleging inappropriate language and breaches of court orders by the Father.
• Contends that the Father’s litigation conduct and denial of findings exacerbate risks and justify protective orders.

Father's Arguments

• Seeks immediate shared care on an alternating weekly basis without preparatory steps or a domestic abuse perpetrator programme.
• Disputes many findings made against him but accepts the acrimonious nature of the separation and attributes some responsibility to the Mother.
• Minimizes the seriousness of sexual abuse findings and uses terms such as "marital rape," which the court found inappropriate.
• Denies using litigation as a means of abuse and asserts frustration at the Mother’s conduct and legal strategy.
• Claims to be motivated by a genuine desire to have a relationship with the Child but lacks insight into the impact of his behavior on the Mother and Child.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
In Re A (a child) [2023] EWFC 198	Fact-finding hearing addressing domestic abuse allegations	The court adopted and incorporated the findings and analysis from this judgment into its factual matrix and welfare assessment.
Re J-M (A Child) [2015] 1 FLR 838	Order for no direct contact as a last resort where no other options are commensurate with child welfare	Referenced in assessing the draconian nature of no direct contact and the need for proportionate welfare-based decisions.
Re A (a child) (supervised contact) (s91(14) Children Act 1989 orders) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749	Use and purpose of s.91(14) orders to filter future court applications in the interests of the child	Guided the court’s decision to make a s.91(14) order against both parents for 24 months to provide respite and encourage behaviour change.
Re T (Children) [2012] UKSC 36; Re S (a Child) [2015] UKSC 20	Costs orders in family proceedings require reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance	Informed the court’s discretion to make no order for costs against either party despite the acrimonious litigation.
E (Children; Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183	Affirmed the cost principles in family proceedings, including fact-finding hearings	Reinforced the court’s approach to costs, confirming no order for costs was appropriate here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s paramount consideration was the welfare of the Child. It carefully reviewed the extensive evidence, including the fact-finding judgment of Recorder Daley, which made serious findings of sexual abuse but rejected allegations of coercive control and found no pattern of domestic abuse beyond a vitriolic separation.

The court found both parents to have adopted extreme positions, with the Mother seeking to sever the Father’s role and the Father seeking immediate shared care without support or acceptance of findings. Both parties exhibited a high level of acrimony and litigation conduct that often obscured the Child’s best interests.

The court assessed the Child’s wishes and feelings through CAFCASS reports, noting the Child’s young age and limited understanding, and that her distress during indirect contact was likely influenced by the Mother’s anxiety and the Father’s frustration.

The court concluded that direct contact, even supervised, was not appropriate at this time given the Child’s anxiety, the Father’s lack of insight and acceptance of findings, and the Mother’s distress. Indirect contact limited to letters and small gifts six times a year was ordered to maintain a link while reducing conflict.

The court rejected the application to change the Child’s surname, finding it would harm her sense of identity and was motivated by the Mother’s wish to erase the Father’s role.

Limited prohibited steps orders were made to regulate the Father’s school attendance and contact with the Child’s GP, balancing parental responsibility with the need to prevent distress and confusion.

The court made a s.91(14) order preventing either parent from making further applications without permission for 24 months, to provide respite and allow the Father time to engage with perpetrator programmes and develop insight.

The application to extend and widen the non-molestation injunction was refused due to lack of recent breaches and proportionality concerns.

Regarding costs, the court applied established principles that costs orders in family proceedings require reprehensible or unreasonable conduct. Despite the acrimonious litigation, no such conduct justified a costs order against either party.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court made final orders for the welfare of the Child as follows: indirect contact only by letters and small gifts six times per year; refusal of the application to change the Child’s surname; limited prohibited steps orders restricting the Father’s school and medical contact; a s.91(14) order restricting further applications without permission for 24 months; refusal to extend the non-molestation injunction; and no order for costs against either party.

The decision reflects a careful balancing of the Child’s welfare with the complex and acrimonious parental dynamics. It emphasizes the need for professional support and behavioural change before any progression to direct contact. The orders provide a framework for respite from litigation and a measured approach to maintaining the Child’s relationship with the Father, without setting new legal precedent.