The Family Court at Chelmsford gave judgment on 5 June 2026 in a welfare dispute over a young child, after earlier findings of controlling and coercive behaviour against his father.
Key facts
- Who: The parents of one child, "B", in a private law children case in the Family Court at Chelmsford
- From: 5 June 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Father v Mother (Welfare: DARVO), Re [2026] EWFC 236 (B)
In Father v Mother (Welfare: DARVO), Re [2026] EWFC 236 (B), His Honour Judge Newport heard a welfare dispute in the Family Court sitting at Chelmsford on 20, 21 and 22 May 2026 and gave judgment on 5 June 2026. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the anonymity of the child and his family is strictly preserved.
Background
The case concerns one child, "B", who is four years old. He lives with his mother ("M"), her partner and M's eldest child. His father ("F") lives elsewhere. The first proceedings were issued in January 2022, so B has spent the vast majority of his life subject to court proceedings.
After a fact-finding hearing in July 2025, the judge rejected all of F's allegations and made extensive findings against him. The headlines were overarching controlling and coercive behaviour, controlling and coercive behaviour over specific periods, "lawfare", impact on M, and harm to B. That judgment is reported as Father v Mother (Fact Finding DARVO) [2025] EWFC 284 (B).
Afterwards the judge directed a psychologist's report and a section 7 report from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). Further applications followed. In August 2025 the judge directed supervised contact. F made an application in October 2025 seeking a review of contact and, among other things, weekend contact and split holidays. He withdrew the part about where M lives. The judge refused his other applications and ordered him to pay costs.
The question
F denied the allegations. He sought a change of B's residence or, failing that, a pattern of meaningful contact. M sought her findings, for B to live with her, no contact between B and F, the ending of F's parental responsibility, an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 and a non-molestation order.
The legal framework
The judge set out the guidance on section 91(14) orders. Practice Direction 12Q describes them as a protective filter, not a bar on applications: they prevent a person making future applications without the court's permission. They can be made where an application would put the child or another individual at risk of harm, and the practice direction says a future application could be part of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour or other domestic abuse. It also says the court may consider making one even if nobody has asked.
For non-molestation orders under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996, the judge described essentially a three-stage test: evidence of molestation, need for protection, and a requirement for judicial intervention to control the behaviour complained of.
The evidence
The judge had a trial bundle of 1,123 pages and a further statement from F, and heard oral evidence from a Cafcass officer, another witness and F. A forensic psychologist assessed both parents and reported on 9 December 2025. She concluded that M presented with symptoms consistent with PTSD and complex PTSD arising from abuse by F as found at the fact-finding hearing, and that M's prognosis was poor without a significant reduction in her exposure to F.
What this means for parents in children proceedings
This is a decision on the facts of one family, and the judge's findings and orders apply to that case. It shows how the court approaches section 91(14) orders and non-molestation orders under the guidance quoted in the judgment. Anyone involved in children proceedings where such orders are sought should check the documents in their own case and take advice before any hearing or deadline.
Sources
- Father v Mother (Welfare: DARVO), Re [2026] EWFC 236 (B), Family Court at Chelmsford, 5 June 2026