Barry McAlinden acted for a mother via public access in private law children proceedings concerning her 3 children, aged 14, 12 and 8. Each child has differing additional needs related to their respective neurodiversity.
The proceedings had involved numerous applications and cross applications throughout the proceedings and allegations of domestic abuse on the part of the mother and cross allegations of parental alienation on the part of the father.
The 2 eldest children, S and D, had litigation capacity and all children were represented by a rule 16.4 guardian. S and D were adamant that they did not want a direct relationship with the applicant father. Since late 2022, the father only had contact with the youngest child, M. The proceedings had had a significant negative impact on the family, the elder children being described as ‘sick’ of the proceedings.
Following a meeting between, and evidence from an independent social worker and a psychologist on the 1st day of the final hearing, the parents agreed a joint narrative for the children and to embark upon a therapeutic resolution to the issues related to child arrangements, to include the parents and all the children. The parties agreed not to pursue their respective allegations.
The parties were not agreed, inter alia, on:
- whether section 91 [14] orders should be made, the mother supporting such orders being made, relying, inter alia, on s 91A of the Children Act 1989 and Re F [2023] EWFC 212, on the basis that the proceedings had had a detrimental impact on the family as a whole and the family needed a break and the children breathing space.
- whether the mother should be granted permission for M to move school.
The court made a ‘joint’ ‘lives with’ order in respect of M in favour of both parents and gave the mother permission to move M to a new school.
The court also made section 91 [14] orders in respect of the elder children on the basis that it provided a breathing space for the children, that the proceedings had negatively impacted the family, that the section 91 [14] was a filter and not a bar on further applications and given the choice of therapeutic intervention to resolve family issues, the need for the family to move on without proceedings ongoing.
The father applied to the trial judge for permission to appeal:
- the making of and the length of the s.91(14) orders in respect of S and D.
- the grant of permission for M to move school;
The father subsequently applied for permission to appeal those orders, and if permission granted to appeal the orders. The appeal court refused permission to appeal the orders insofar as they related to the elder children, and the appeal in respect of M was withdrawn, thus concluding the proceedings.
Read the judgment in full in P v P & Ors [2024] EWFC 347 (B) (23 August 2024)