D v I [2026] EWFC 125 (B)
DJ PARKER:
[1]I am concerned with three children: R, who is four, M, who is two, and V, who is one.[2]On 7 October 2024, I made a shared lives with order. It was a reasonably complex order as the children were not cared for in whole by one parent; R predominantly with lived his father, whilst M lived with her the mother. The essence of the order I made attempted to keep all the siblings more or less together.[3]In relation to R, I made an order as follows: for week one, R would live with the mother from 4.30pm on Friday to Monday, and week two with Mum 4.30pm on a Friday to the Monday. Week three with the mum from 4.30pm on Friday to the Monday. The rest of the week they would live with the father. Week four they would live with the father from Monday to Friday, thereafter, reverting to the week one routine.[4]As far as for M for week one, they would live with the mother from 4.30pm Friday until the Tuesday and with the father from Tuesday until Friday at 4.30pm. Week two, they would live with the mother from 4.30pm Friday until Tuesday, and then with the father from 4.30pm Tuesday until the Friday at 4.30pm. Week three, they would live with the Mum from 4.30pm Friday until Tuesday and then with the father from 4.30pm Friday and then week four, the they would live with the father from the Tuesday to the Sunday at 2pm and then with the Mum on Sunday, 2pm until the Tuesday thereafter reverting back to week one.[5]Mother subsequently applied for a variation to that order, the subsequent child impact report recommended that R should spend time with the mother in week four on a Sunday so that he could be with his siblings. It was noted that the children were, at that stage, on a child-in-need plan due to parental conflict.[6]I subsequently varied the order insofar as R was concerned, so that in week four, R was to spend time with the mother on a Sunday from 2pm until the Monday drop-off at nursery.[7]I understand that there was an appeal to that decision, which was refused on 31 July 2025, with the judge hearing the appeal indicating that any further applications may open the door potentially to a section 91(14) direction.[8]I note that the mother made a further application to vary the child arrangements order in relation to handovers due to her pregnancy. There was no attempt at non-court dispute resolution.[9]On 5 September 2025, HHJ Rowland directed that the father be responsible for drop-offs and collection at Sainsbury’s until three weeks post birth of the mother’s baby and thereafter, for the arrangements to revert to the original order with regards to collection and return, unless the parties were able to agree otherwise.[10]Mum thereafter subsequently applied for a child arrangements live with order in relation to all of the children and for the father to have alternate-weekend contact, including a specific issue order with regards to M’s nursery placement due to a number of safeguarding concerns she raised in relation to the father.[11]I note from the order of 4 October 2025, following on from that application, that both parties sought to vary the order that I had previously made and sought for the children to live with them and spend time with the other parent on alternate weekends, as well as a specific issue order with regard to nursery provision. A further child impact report was directed.[12]I note that a further application thereafter came in from the mother for an urgent hearing due to allegations that the father had breached the order and requesting that contact take place at a contact centre due to alleged disclosures made by one of the children.[13]The mum’s position in is that she sought full-time care of all three children due to what she feels is neglect towards them by the father in relation to poor hygiene and a number of bruises being noted on the children. There were also issues in relation to M’s nursery placement. It was the mother’s wish for her to move to B Infant School permanently, albeit that this is a nursery provision that Father does not agree, he prefers H Pre-School. I note that, at that time, there was a dual placement taking effect depending upon with which parent the child was living with. I accept the mother’s case that that would be confusing for the child, and that there should only be one nursery placement.[14]She disputes the ultimate recommendations of the child impact report, which I will come back to, stating that there are no safeguarding concerns with regards to the children in her care and that the children should live with her permanently and have contact with the father on alternate weekends.[15]She further asserts that the father’s accommodation is unsuitable and that, ultimately, a shared live with order was not in the children’s best interests. She accepts that handovers need to be in public areas due to conflict between the parties, but suggests a handover point halfway between the parents’ homes due to her having a new baby, and the use of a parenting app.[16]In his statement the father addresses the issue in relation to M’s nursery placement. He was unaware that her nursery placement had been unilaterally changed by the mother. He does not wish for handovers to be near the mother’s home. He believes that the current arrangement has been working well and seeks a section 91(14) order to protect the children from further litigation as well as an order in relation to regulating M’s nursery placement.[17]Sadly, the parents have shown an inability to co-parent as evidenced by the difficulties at handovers, he supports the child impact report recommendations, although raises issues as to the costs of handovers if they were to be facilitated by a professional as opposed to a trusted third party.[18]I therefore come to the child impact report which was undertaken by Birmingham Local Authority. It comments that all three children, due to my order, have different living arrangements, with R on the one hand, and M and V on the other. The arrangements are causing conflict due to a number of allegations and cross-allegations.[19]I note that a section 17 assessment on 17 September 2025 raised a number of concerns namely a worrying level of ongoing conflict and its consequential impact on the children with regards to emotional harm. It recommends that handovers should be at a public location and that the difficulties are at such a level that the child protection process be convened if the situation persisted.[20]There are a number of reports from professionals, namely the community nurse from the home treatment team and the deputy manager from H Pre-School Nursery in relation to Mother’s volatile behaviour. I also note concerns from the team’s family support worker and Birmingham Women’s Hospital. It is noted that M currently attends two nurseries, depending on whose care she was in: B on Mondays and H on Wednesdays and Thursdays. It records a heightened conflict and inability to co-parent which, long-term, could cause significant harm.[21]In essence, the current arrangements with regards to shared care are not working and are causing emotional distress for the children. Therefore, it is proposed that the children should live with the father full-time and spend family time with the mother on alternate weekends. There would be shared holidays. The handovers to be independently facilitated, and the parties to use a parenting app. I note that a report from the independent domestic violence advisor alleges that M and R have disclosed being hit by the father on 6 January 2026 and did not want to stay with him.[22]On 21 January 2026 I directed that handovers should take place as per the terms of the order dated 7 October 2024, unless the parties agreed between themselves to vary the arrangements in writing.[23]I determined at the hearing on 21 January 2026 that there should be no change to the children’s clothes or shoes at handovers, which had been taking place, and that M should attend H Nursery until further order being the same nursery placement that R attended on the basis that he siblings should attend the same placement together.[24]The matter was listed thereafter for a final hearing, and for the social worker to attend to give evidence and the matter being dealt with by way of submissions.[25]At the final hearing the Court was also to consider whether or not to make a section 91(14) direction, which was supported by the father but opposed by the mother.[26]Mother opposes the recommendations of the child impact report. She seeks a live with order for the children to live with her and to spend time with the father fortnightly.[27]The father agrees to the recommendations. He seeks a live with order in his favour and for the children to spend time with the mother on the same terms.[28]There are ongoing issues in relation to handovers and the level of emotional harm that the children are being exposed to.[29]In essence, the current order is not working.[30]I note that there are no concerns with regards to Father’s care of the children.[31]I directed that the social worker should file a further updating report prior to the final hearing.[32]The mother had also, prior to the last hearing, issued a C2 application, which, in essence, was an application for enforcement. I recorded on the face of the order that that should not be treated as an enforcement application. If one was sought, it should be issued as a formal C79 application.[33]I note that there was a temporary order made on 12 February 2026 until the end of February 2026, for handovers to take place at Sainsbury’s, Northfield, due to Mum giving birth with a further application in relation to extending that being refused.[34]The mother thereafter applied for an enforcement application.[35]She stated that she was to have the children on 6 to 9 January 2026, albeit there seems to have been some dispute with regards to that. There were also issues in December 2025. She raises issues with the lack of compliance via the parenting app, and that communication only seems to have been by way of email. She says the father says he cannot afford to use the parenting app. I directed that the application for enforcement was to be listed alongside the final hearing.[36]I read the father’s statement for the hearing. He states that he was unable to use the parenting app due to the cost, and with regards to the enforcement application, he said that there were difficulties with the interpretation of the current order, the mother believing that weekend contact applies through the school holidays, the father being of the view that school holidays take precedence. He seeks its dismissal.[37]He seeks for the children to live with him and spend time with their mother and wishes to be added to M’s birth certificate, albeit must be a formal application with regards to that. He supports a section 91(14) order being made.[38]The Mother in her statement maintains that the current proceedings have been instigated due to concerns that she has as to the father’s care of the children, claiming he that neglects them with respect to their medical needs, as well as lack of supervision and physical abuse towards them. This is why she seeks for the children to live with her and spend time with the father; in essence, the reverse in relation to what the father seeks in respect of the mother.[39]She states that V is currently breastfed and that M has been in her care since birth, and that placement in the father’s care would have a detrimental effect.[40]If the Court disagrees with her position, she wishes to take the children on holiday to Tunisia on 4 August 2026 which, it is understood, is agreed by the father.[41]Handovers currently take place at Sutton Coldfield train station. The mother says she does not drive and proposes a halfway point.[42]She believes that M should attend B Nursery due to the breakdown in the relationship between her and the staff at H Nursery.[43]She supports communication via a parenting app.[44]I have also read the updated child impact report. It notes the mother’s express strong dissatisfaction with the current arrangements and the actions of professionals. She disagrees with the recommendations. She says there are no safeguarding concerns in relation to her own parenting ability with the children, and they are thriving in her care. Happily, there have been no further incidents since the last hearing, albeit, of course, that only took place on 21 January 2026. The author of the report remains concerned as to the recurrence of conflict once professional involvement ceases. The children are currently on a child-in-need plan, but at the end of these proceedings it is likely that this will end and there will no ongoing involvement.[45]The author is of the view that reducing handovers will also mitigate the issues in relation to the parental conflict.[46]It is noted that the school have also noted some behavioural changes with regards to R, albeit there is no concern in relation to the other children. This primarily may well be because R is older and more aware. The school have also raised issues with regards to Mum’s behaviour. In essence, there is ongoing parental conflict which impacts on the children.[47]Although there has been no escalation with regards to safeguarding concerns, it has not dramatically improved either. Therefore, the recommendations remain for the children to reside with their father full-time and spend time with the mother on alternate weekends and shared holidays. The shared ‘lives with’ order is not working, the issue not being one of basic care but of emotional harm and exposure of the children to ongoing parental conflict.THE ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
[48]Accordingly, there are a number of issues which I need to address today:[49]Should the current child arrangements order that I made by way of a shared lives with order on 7 October 2024 be varied and, if so, to what extent?[50]Should there be a section 91(14) order and, if so, for what duration?[51]The enforcement application.[52]The use of a parenting app as opposed to emails.[53]The father being recorded on M’s birth certificate.[54]Provision with regards to handovers and M’s nursery provision. EVIDENCE AUTHOR OF CHILD IMPACT REPORT QUESTIONS FROM MOTHER’S REPRESENTATIVEEVIDENCE
[55]She set out her current recommendations for a change of lives with arrangements from a shared lives with order to a live with order in favour of the father. She accepted there was no issue with regards to basic care insofar as the mother is concerned, and there are no safeguarding concerns. She was asked why she was recommending such a significant reduction in contact. She said that there were cross-applications for live with orders. The issues were in relation to protracted conflict, handovers, communication and allegations being made. This needs to be mitigated and significantly reduced. In other words, her recommendation was on the basis of conflict reduction, which was otherwise impacting on the children.[56]The wishes and feelings of the children were explored. The younger children are too young to express a view. It was noted that R had no issues with the arrangements but is aware of the issues at handovers and the fact that he has mentioned counting his bruises.[57]She was asked as to why Mum’s proposals for a live with order in her favour was not the more appropriate order. She commented that the conflict situations seem to emanate predominantly from the mother, and she lacked insight as to the recognition of the impact of this, for example, turning up to school when not her contact day. She felt the father was able to offer more stability for the children and commented with regards to Mum’s interactions with nursery and professionals by way of a contrast with that of the father.[58]Alternate weekends would allow each parent to have a weekend with the children. The parents live a distance from each other, albeit, within Birmingham, and it would not be appropriate to divide the week in half.[59]Although conflict, she accepts, has been reduced since the last hearing, she believes that the history of this matter will dictate that it is more likely than not that it will reignite. Therefore, her proposals are for Mother to have alternate weekends and shared holidays.[60]She was asked about the fact that the mother breastfeeds V and the impact on her of a reduction in contact. She responded that V spends time with the father in any event under the current regime, so it would not be a problem.[61]Simply put, the shared ‘lives with’ order is not working. It needs to change. The children need stability. This is what she feels her recommendations provide. Effectively, the siblings need to be together.[62]She commented that the handovers themselves are a source of conflict and need to be independently facilitated, which would require a cost.[63]With regards to contact by video or otherwise, she is concerned that this is not workable at this stage due to the conflict between the parents and would not be manageable and would expose the children to further harm.[64]She proposes that M, if the Court determines that the children should live with Father, should remain where she is at H Nursery.[65]She also makes a general comment as to her concerns as to Mother’s ability to regulate her emotions as the children get older. Although there is no direct evidence in relation to this being an issue, there are, of course, red flags, for example, the mother turning up to the school on a non-contact day with a bodycam to, she said, and which was overheard, to “goad” the father. This information came from the school, although she accepted, she did not discuss it with the mother.QUESTIONS FROM FATHER’S REPRESENTATIVE
[66]The issue in this case, she reiterated, was the impact on the children and the constant involvement of professionals through unfounded allegations as to the father’s care, and issues at handovers as well as other matters observed by other professionals. SUBMISSIONS FATHER’S REPRESENTATIVESUBMISSIONS
[67]This, effectively, is a case which has a longstanding history of ongoing litigation. The children are only four, two and one, respectively. The issue is the emotional impact on them due to this ongoing conflict, predominantly instigated by the mother, including unfounded and repeated allegations, for example, attending school on a no-contact date to “goad” the father, as was overhead, and with a bodycam. It is contended that this shows a significant lack of insight and needed intervention from the school. It also includes unfounded allegations resulting in a four-year old child counting their bruises. It is contended that the risks in the current arrangement are clear, and the harm to the children will continue whilst such an order remains in place.[68]It was noted that it appears that the mother is no longer pursuing a ‘lives with’ order and wishes for the current arrangements to remain, subject to some amendment.MOTHER’S REPRESENTATIVE
[69]The mother continues to seek a shared ‘lives with’ order and for the arrangements more or less to continue as they are. It is reiterated that the issue is not her inability to care, but one of parental conflict.[70]The proposals put forward by the author of the child impact report are drastic, changing the terms of an order which was made on 7 October 2024 alongside a substantial reduction in contact so that the mother only sees the children for two weekends a month with no weekly contact, albeit with shared holidays.JUDGEMENT
[71]In any hearing and determination as to the arrangements for children, the children’s welfare is the Court’s paramount consideration, having regard to the Welfare Checklist. It is clear to me that, very sadly, the order that I made on 7 October 2024 is not working. It barely lasted six months before a further application came in, and following on from that, a number of other applications were issued, predominantly from the mother.[72]I accept that, in this case, it is not about the basic care that these parents can provide to the children; that is not questioned. However, it is the emotional harm that has been caused to them through protracted and continued litigation, lack of co-parenting communications, allegations being made, issues during handovers. Sadly, it appears to me that the only way for this parental conflict to be reduced is by making some drastic amendments to the current child arrangements order, because it is the children that must be the focus of this.[73]I am sad to say that I accept what the Local Authority have to say in the child impact report that the conflict situations as to its emanation is not balanced. It predominantly emanates from the mother. I am accordingly drawn to the conclusion that a change in ‘live with’ arrangements in favour of the father is the most appropriate order in this case. I am satisfied on the evidence, both in relation to what I have read and heard, that he is able to offer more stability for the children, interact with the nursery and other professionals, adopt a more measured approach and facilitate Mother’s contact.[74]The current order, if it were to remain in place, although there has been a hiatus in relation to the conflict since the matter was last in court, I regard, based upon the history of this matter, likely to be short-lived. We are undoubtedly going to find ourselves in court again, with further incidents and allegations. That is not good for the children. The current order, sadly, is not working because the parents have not made it work; predominantly, I have to say, the mother. If it were to continue, the emotional impact on the children over the course of time would be significant. That cannot be allowed to happen.[75]Accordingly, the order that I will make is as follows: that, forthwith, all three children will live with the father. Going forward, the children will spend alternate weekends with the mother. I understand that we are currently in week one of the scheduled rota set up by the order of 7 October 2024, and, on that basis, the first weekend of the mother’s contact will be this weekend. I understand that that takes place from 4.30pm on Friday to the Monday. Unless I am told otherwise, it is my view that the alternate-weekend contact should remain on the Friday to the Monday.[76]It is clearly important, in my view, that the parents are not involved in handovers at all at this stage. It should either be by way of an agreed mutual third party or by a professional, the cost of which is to be borne between the parents equally. The handover point should be a halfway point between both parents’ homes. This will share the burden, particularly on the basis that the mother has a newborn non-subject child.[77]Holidays should be shared equally between the parents. I understand it is agreed in the summer. This can be on a 1/2/2/1 week basis.[78]On the basis that I have decided that the children will live with the father, week one will be spent with the mother, weeks two and three with the father, weeks four and five with the mother and week six with the father so that he can then ensure that they attend school at the end of the school holidays.[79]Insofar as M is concerned, she shall remain at H Nursery.[80]It will be recorded that the father agrees to the mother having a holiday in Tunisia with the three children, on 18 to 24 August 2026. Upon the conclusion of the holiday, the children will be returned to the father, which, I think, fits in with more or less week six of the school holidays.[81]It is clear, in my view, that these children need a respite from litigation. A section 91(14) direction is not the exceptional order it once was; it is a filter. If somebody can establish a genuine issue which requires the determination of the Court, it will pass the test. Both parties agree that these children need a break from litigation, and, therefore, I will impose a section 91(14) direction until 31 July 2028; any application in the future being reserved to myself.[82]The parties shall communicate with each via an agreed parenting app. I understand one has been recommended, being Separating Better by OnePlusOne.[83]I further make a declaration of parentage in relation to M.[84]That is my order and the reasons for it. End of Judgment. Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd 291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG Tel: 020 7269 0370 legal@ubiqus.com Acolad UK Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof