Aristide Hoang-Brown summarises a judgment for Family Law Week. It concerns a child arrangements order application made by a former civil partner to spend time with 4 children born during her civil partnership with the biological mother.
Considering the recent Family Justice Council Guidance on allegations of alienating behaviour, Poole J made no order on the application.
Background
CP and M were civil partners from November 2006 to June 2016. The 5 children subject to the proceedings were all born in England as British citizens during CP and M’s civil partnership.
M and all the children moved to a Gulf state during 2014-2015 where they are now habitually resident and live with M and her new partner.
Procedural history
In February 2022, CP applied for a child arrangement order to the family court. In March, CP then applied to the High Court to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction in respect of the children.
The court determined that while it had jurisdiction concerning the eldest child on the basis of his presence (at boarding school) in England and Wales, it had no jurisdiction in relation to the other 4 children. The court also determined that CP was not the legal parent of the children.
CP appealed those decisions in July 2023 to the Court of Appeal.
The court determined that:
- CP was the legal parent of the youngest 4 children, and
- the court had jurisdiction to consider her applications and to make Children Act 1989 s8 orders in respect of those 4 children.
Despite CP’s application for an order that the 4 youngest children spend time with her, M’s position was that the children did not wish to have contact with her.
M and the Guardian submitted that it was not in the children’s best interests to prolong proceedings, which the Guardian advised were distressing to them.
Decision
Poole J noted the boys had steadfastly expressed strong wishes not to have contact with CP and “attempts to change their minds or to encourage them to adopt a different understanding of their life stories, will be resented by them and will be very likely to fail” [22].
He made no order on CP’s application save for allowing for memory boxes and the provision of updates about the children by M to CP at suitable intervals.