![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> BB v CC [2025] EWHC 959 (Fam) (16 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/959.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 959 (Fam) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
BB |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
CC |
Respondent |
____________________
Tatiana Rocha (instructed by Clayton Stoke) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 14th March 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction
a. the father (through various aliases, notably 'Jamie Gwenstefani') sent abusive and threatening letters to the mother, including threats to rape and kill;
b. the father (through various aliases, notably 'Jamie Gwenstefani') sent abusive and threatening letters to the mother's family, including threats to rape and kill and sending an envelope containing pins to her blind cousin (on which he could have harmed himself);
c. the father (through various aliases, notably 'Jamie Gwenstefani') sent abusive and threatening letters to the mother's legal team, including threats to rape and kill;
d. the father's behaviour amounted to coercive behaviour.
a. the father's (informal) request for me to recuse myself;
b. whether the child arrangements order reflecting that L lives with the mother should be finalised, and whether there should be a child arrangements order for no contact between the father and child;
c. whether the father's responsibility should be removed (on his own request);
d. whether the court should make a s91(14) barring order and, if so, for how long;
e. ancillary issues in relation to disclosure of certain papers within proceedings.
The father's application for recusal and the father's non-attendance
Child arrangements order
Parental responsibility
a. There is no contact with the subject child. In this case, the father has not seen L since about March 2023.
b. The father has caused significant harm to the subject child's mother – this has been found by the court. There is no substantive acknowledgment of findings made, despite his initial admission at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing.
c. The practical exercise of parental responsibility relates solely to rights – the father has no responsibilities towards the child at all. He does not maintain the child, and has said he does his best to work cash in hand so he does not need to pay child maintenance.
d. Where the father's continued involvement in the child's life, even at the periphery, adversely affects the mother, therefore indirectly affecting the child. The father has been in and out of proceedings, sometimes even once claiming he had died in a car crash in Germany. Such behaviour destabilises the mother and causes her to worry.
e. The final thing is that there is positive welfare benefit to L of revoking parental responsibility. Whilst I would encourage the mother to continue to have a relationship with the paternal family if she can, it seems there is a welfare benefit to the father's parental responsibility being removed. This would promote both L and the mother's stability.
Section 91(14) Barring Order
Other issues