Newsflash: Re A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Welfare) (No. 4) [2026] EWFC 152

1. This case concerns a child, “A”, and a dispute surrounding the time she spends with her father.
2. By way of background, the parents’ relationship began in 2017 and lasted some 3 years before ending shortly after the birth of A. The parents were never married nor cohabitated. Both parents have children from other relationships. Following separation, the father remained in A’s life but the parents were unable to agree the long-term arrangements leading to the father initiating court proceedings on 1 October 2021.

3. On 17 December 2021 the father collected A from the mother’s care in line with the arrangements at that time. Unfortunately the mother, who was alone in her home at the time, was horrifically attacked by two masked men. The mother was beaten, had a toxic substance thrown in her face and a laceration to both her face and throat. She managed to escape through her living room window. The two men escaped. There were no signs of forced entry, and nothing was taken from the property. Despite police investigations, they have been unable to press charges against any individuals however, the mother and the police are of the firm view that this attack was orchestrated by the father.

4. A fact-finding hearing had taken place within the proceedings where the court made a number of serious findings of domestic abuse against the father. This judgment must be read alongside the court’s previous judgments: Re A (A Minor: Preliminary Issue: Proceeding in the absence of a party) [2025] EWFC 346, Re A (A Minor: Proceeding in the absence of a party: Application to set aside) (No. 2) [2025] EWFC and Re A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding) (No. 3) [2025] EWFC 351. In summary, the court’s findings against the father at the fact-find included controlling and coercive behaviour and that throughout the proceedings he had been motivated by self-preservation and had little regard for the impact of his behaviour on the mother or A.

5. Throughout the court proceedings it was not possible to establish contact between A and her father however there was indirect contact through correspondence. The judgment details that in the most recent reports of an ISW, concerns were raised about A's serious anxiety on being separated from her mother and the father's lack of acknowledgement or insight into these concerns.

6. NYAS recommended that A should continue to have monthly indirect contact with her father through correspondence and occasional gifts. The parents broadly agreed with this however there were ancillary applications before the court as follows:

1. The father sought an additional two contacts to the recommended monthly contact for Christmas and A's birthday. The mother opposed this and sought for contact to be reduced to six session per annum.
2. The mother sought a five-year term prohibited steps order preventing the father from removing A from her care (within the judgment for the fact-find - Re A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding) (No. 3) - the court refers to the father's thinly veiled attempt at gaining an advantage in the early part of these proceedings by using the attack on the mother as an excuse not to return the child to her care leading to police intervention). The father opposed the PSO but submitted that if ordered then it should be for not more than two years.
3. The mother sought a s91(14) barring order for a five-year period against the father. The father opposed but submitted that if ordered then it should be for no more than two years.
4. The father wished to attend a Domestic Abuse Perpetrator's Programme ('DAPP') that is equivalent to a RESPECT accredited course so that he can work towards developing his contact with A. The mother argued that any course must be RESPECT accredited and that the successful engagement and completion with such a course must be a precondition to the father making any future applications to the court. Further, the mother argued that the RESPECT approach requires a twelve-month period of reflection before an individual can commence the course, which would be absent in courses that the father wished to undertake. Given the history to this matter, the mother submitted that this was another attempt by the father trying to control the court process and to bring the mother back to court as soon as it is possible.

7. The court determined as follows:

1. Time with the father: The court agreed with NYAS that the current arrangements for A (that being monthly indirect correspondence) should remain unchanged. The court noted the child is used to that arrangement, as are the parents and the parents’ ability to maintain the arrangements without support is yet to be tested. Further, any reduction in the frequency would be an unnecessary change and an increase may become an intolerable intrusion into the mother's life that may threaten the solid foundations of the current arrangements and their ultimate breakdown.

1. Prohibited steps order: the court made the PSO for a period of 5 years preventing the father himself, or through the agency of another, removing A from the mother’s care. The court had no doubt that the mother’s fears and anxieties are genuinely held and that each day she has to battle the horrors of the past events and what may lie ahead. Further, the court said that the father's conduct in the aftermath of the attack has given the mother cause to live in fear of A being removed from her care.

1. S91(14) order: the court made the order for 3 years. It considered the mother’s request for a 5 year period disproportionately long and instead 3 years was proportionate. This duration should also give A chance to have a greater understanding of her circumstances and be better placed to express her views by the time of its conclusion. Further, the court hoped that this period would offer A an opportunity to become less anxious about separating from her mother and provide breathing space for some reflection on the father's part. In deciding to make the s91(14) order, the court considered its findings about the father’s conduct prior and during the proceedings, the mother's experiences and A's significant anxieties. It concluded that any future applications by the father are likely to put the mother and A at a risk of harm. A’s welfare demanded that there is a cessation to proceedings and time for her to enjoy her childhood. In respect of the mother’s request that any future application must meet preset conditions, the court was reminded of Stringer v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 1617 and Re S (Children); Re E (A child)[2006] EWCA Civ 1190 in which the Court of Appeal very clearly stated that the statutory framework does not permit any conditions to be attached to a s.91(14) order.

1. Conditions upon the development of A's time with the father: the court ordered that the father should attend a RESPECT accredited DAPP and that if he wishes to make any future applications to the court then he is to provide a copy of all of the judgments in this case and a report from the DAPP provider with his future application. In reaching its decision, the court said that it has “no doubt that the courses that father wish to attend are suitable for a certain cohort of individuals. Whatever course the father attends must not only bring about the much-needed positive changes for the matter to progress, but it must also bring with it a degree of confidence on the part of the mother so that she can better invest and promote A's relationship with her father. Given that the mother has already expressed clear and certain reservations about the proposed courses, it is unlikely that the completion of any such course would progress matters in the way that the father wishes. Furthermore, for reasons that I have already identified concerning the courts findings and the father's denial of the same, the father and importantly A will be far better served by attending a suitably RESPECT accredited course that may provide the court with the appropriate necessary evidence.”

I also highlight the court’s further judgment - Martin v The Father & Ors [2026] EWFC 151 – connected to this case. This further judgment concerns an application to the court by a journalist to publicly identify the father. The application was dismissed.