Family Court orders five-year protective order and three-year bar on applications

The Family Court, in a child welfare case involving findings of domestic abuse, made a five-year prohibited steps order, a three-year bar on new applications and directed the father to attend an accredited programme.

In Re A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Welfare) (No. 4) [2026] EWFC 152, HHJ Moradifar, sitting in the Family Court at Gloucester as a judge of the High Court, gave judgment on 10 June 2026 after a hearing on 14 and 15 April 2026. The judgment is anonymised and refers to the child as A.

Background

The case concerns a dispute between A's parents about the time she spends with her father. The father began proceedings on 1 October 2021. At an earlier fact-finding hearing the judge made serious findings of domestic abuse against him. The mother and the police believe an attack on the mother in December 2021 was orchestrated by the father. The judgment records that the police have been unable to press charges against anyone. It must be read together with three earlier judgments in the case.

The National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) caseworker recommended continued indirect contact through correspondence and occasional gifts. A is highly resistant to video or direct contact, which the judgment describes as a reflection of her anxieties and not her views of her father.

The questions

The court had to decide the level of contact, whether to make a prohibited steps order, whether to bar the father from making applications without permission, and what kind of domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) he should attend.

The decision and reasoning

• Prohibited steps order: The father must not remove A from the mother's care, whether himself or through another person, for five years. The court found this necessary and proportionate, having regard to the length of proceedings, what the mother has endured, A's age and the possible ongoing impact on the mother as A's primary carer.
• Bar on applications: The court made an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, so the father needs the court's permission to apply. It found future applications were likely to put the mother and A at risk of harm, and that A's welfare demands an end to proceedings. It accepted the order encroaches on the father's rights to family life and a fair trial, but found it proportionate. It set the term at three years, finding the mother's request for five years disproportionately long.
• No conditions on the bar: The court declined to attach conditions, such as completing a course, to the section 91(14) order, relying on Court of Appeal authority that the statutory framework does not permit conditions. At the mother's request, any future application during the term will proceed without notice to her in the first instance.
• Programme: The court ordered the father to attend a RESPECT accredited DAPP rather than the equivalent course he proposed. It reasoned that, given his denial of the findings, an accredited course was likely to serve him and A better, provide the court with necessary evidence, and give the mother more confidence. If he makes a future application, he must provide the judgment and a report from the DAPP provider. Future applications are reserved to HHJ Moradifar in the first instance, but may be heard by another judge if the case is released or the judge is unavailable.

Sources

• A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Welfare) (No 4), Re [2026] EWFC 152, Family Court, 10 June 2026