Summary of Judgment — Re P - No. 2: Welfare (Supplementary)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a supplementary judgment arising from an earlier appellate determination in three conjoined appeals concerning paternity and parental responsibility ([2026] EWCA Civ 344, Re J, M and P (Loss of Parental Responsibility)). The appeal before this court concerned residual welfare issues in respect of the child in Re P. The Family Court trial was conducted by Judge Reardon. The principal parties as styled in the record are Appellant 1 ('Father 2'), Appellant 2 ('Guardian'), Respondent 1 ('Mother') and Respondent 2 ('Father 1'). Appellant 1 (TP2) challenged aspects of the child arrangements order made by Judge Reardon, principally seeking to challenge permission granted to Respondent 2 (TP1) to remove the child from the jurisdiction, and the discharge of a previous order prohibiting removal from the mother's care. The Court of Appeal handed down this supplementary judgment after receipt of further written submissions and by agreement that no further oral hearing was required.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in her welfare evaluation by failing adequately to balance the risk posed by Respondent 2's (TP1's) removal of the children in June 2024 (Ground 5).
2. Whether the trial judge failed properly to analyse the impact on the subject child of the child arrangements and the psychological effect on the child's understanding of their role within the family (Ground 6).
3. Whether, following the appellate determination of paternity issues, this court should grant parental responsibility to Appellant 1 (TP2) or make consequential orders restricting Respondent 2's (TP1's) ability to remove the child from the jurisdiction or from the mother's care.
4. Whether an order should be made requiring production of the court's order alongside the birth certificate for any third party relying on the birth certificate (application advanced by Respondent 1).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Markham and Attorney Whelan)

• Ground 5: The judge failed to give adequate weight to the harm caused by Respondent 2's June 2024 removal of the children and should have re-introduced Respondent 2's contact on a stepped basis.
• Ground 6: The judge did not properly analyse how the child arrangements would psychologically affect the subject child's understanding of their role in the family; too much weight was given to re-establishing Respondent 2 rather than preserving the status quo that the guardian favoured.
• Relief sought: grant Appellant 1 parental responsibility (by lives-with order under CA 1989, ss 8+12 or under s 4); reinstate a permanent prohibited steps order preventing Respondent 2 removing the child from the jurisdiction without permission; prohibit Respondent 2 from removing the child from the care of Respondent 1 or Appellant 1.

Respondent 1's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney McKenna)

• Sought an order requiring any person using the current birth certificate to produce this court's order removing parental responsibility from Respondent 2, or that both documents be produced together to third parties (e.g. Passport Office).

Respondent 2's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Bazley)

• No basis for this Court of Appeal to grant parental responsibility to Appellant 1 where that issue was not before the trial court and was not an element of the welfare appeal.
• Judge Reardon's decisions to remove the prohibited steps order and to give permission for travel were supported by her reasoning and welfare analysis and should stand.
• The proposed birth-certificate production order would not assist third parties in determining parentage and offers no welfare advantage to the child.
• Noted that Appellant 1 no longer seeks variation of apportionment of time in the child arrangements order.

Appellant 2 / Children's Guardian's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Bagchi)

• Opposed the appeal on welfare grounds: Judge Reardon's decisions were within the generous bounds of judicial discretion; any requests that exceed the scope of the appeal should be refused and further consideration left to the Family Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re J, M and P (Loss of Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344	Resolution of conjoined appeals concerning paternity and parental responsibility; context for remaining welfare issues.	The Court relied on that prior judgment as having resolved paternity and parental responsibility issues save for the welfare issues addressed in this supplementary judgment; the present welfare determination is made in light of that prior decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the trial judge's comprehensive welfare analysis and emphasised the proper focus of welfare evaluation on future risk rather than re-litigation of past events. In relation to Ground 5 (the June 2024 removal), the Court noted that Judge Reardon explicitly considered the incident at paragraph 94, assessed its context (including prior restriction of contact), and concluded that a proper, ordered regime would reduce the likelihood of repetition. The Court found no evidence in the appellant's materials demonstrating concrete harm to the child arising from the June 2024 event; general assertions of 'significant worry' did not show the judge's evaluation was unreasonable. Intervention on appeal would only be appropriate if the judge's conclusion were plainly wrong or not open on the evidence; the Court held it was plainly open to the judge.

Regarding Ground 6 (the child's understanding of family relationships), the Court observed that Judge Reardon had devoted detailed analysis to the children's understanding of family relationships and had provided a 'narrative' and advice for introducing complex paternity truths to the children. The complaint that the judge placed excessive weight on parity of contact rather than the child's emotional stability was rejected: the judge's allocation of weight and decision to provide ordinary, regular contact with Respondent 2 was within the judge's evaluative discretion and was supported by the evidence, particularly given unresolved issues of parentage.

The Court also addressed the ancillary applications advanced after the appeal: an application by Appellant 1 for parental responsibility could not be granted by this court following dismissal of the welfare appeal; Judge Reardon's pragmatic approach—affording the mother pre-eminent parental status while specifying high-level issues for consultation—was lawful and appropriate in the unusual circumstances. The Court questioned its jurisdiction and the utility of the birth-certificate production order sought by Respondent 1 and declined to make such an order.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The appeal on welfare grounds (Grounds 5 and 6) is dismissed. The Court concluded that Judge Reardon's welfare evaluation was comprehensive, addressed the June 2024 incident, and her conclusions about future risk and the need to re-establish relationships were within the range of reasonable judicial decisions.

Implications:

• The child arrangements and the orders made by Judge Reardon remain in force; the Court declined to reinstate a permanent prohibited steps order or to restrict Respondent 2's ability to travel with the child as ordered by Judge Reardon.
• The Court did not grant parental responsibility to Appellant 1; that relief was not available on this appeal following its dismissal, and any reconsideration should be pursued in the Family Court if appropriate.
• The Court refused the requested order requiring production of the court order alongside the birth certificate and expressed doubt as to the jurisdictional basis and practical effect of such an order.
• No new legal precedent was established beyond affirmation that the trial judge's discretionary welfare judgments were within the permissible range on the facts before her.

---

Judgment delivered by Judge McFarlane, with agreement from Judge King and Judge Stuart-Smith.