Extension of private children proceedings for children over the age of 16

M v F & Anor [2024] EWFC 219 (B) (19 July 2024)

This case was initially in relation to two children, a brother and a sister, and it was agreed that these children would live with their Mother.

The sister made it clear that she did not wish to be subject to any orders and did not wish to see her father and so no orders were made in relation to her, and she has not seen her father since.

Proceedings should have ended once the children turned 16, however, they were extended in relation to the brother, who was 17 years old, as he has physical and communication limitations arising from cerebral palsy which made supporting his relation with his father difficult due to intimate personal care needs. The Judge in this case extended proceedings as they felt that it was in this child’s best interests to have both parents in his life.

The child was assessed by Social Services’ 16-25 disabilities team as having capacity to decide whether he should be accommodated somewhere that could provide him relevant care and so the Judge in this case decided that he also had capacity to make a decision about whether he should have contact with his father.

The child informed the Court via Social Services that he did wish to see his father but that he did not know how to do this. The child had also, however, previously told a doctor that he wanted the same as his sister and not to have to see his father.

It became clear that the Mother had been incorrectly explaining the proceedings to the child as he thought that an Order would force him to have contact his father whereas really it would be forcing his mother to make him available for contact in line with his wishes and feelings.

The Mother stated that she just wanted what was best for the child and that the Father would not be able to meet the child’s needs nor did the child wish to see his father.

The parents were able to agree that an Order should be made simply stating that the Mother should make the child available for contact in line with his wishes and feelings and this was the Order that was made.

The Court emphasised that they were now relying on these parents to exercise their parental responsibility responsibly in order to give the child the best opportunity to develop a relationship with his paternal family.

The Order recognised that the child has a right to a relationship with his father and his mother has  a duty to support him in this.

The Judge gave consideration as to whether the child in this case required the Court of Protection, however, it was decided that this was not the case as it appeared the child has capacity to express his wishes and feelings.

‍