Three-lay-magistrates have approved an order setting out the blueprint for the parenting arrangements of a nine-year-old girl, as only recently relaxed rules allow the case to be reported.
It has only been around 10 weeks since the Family Procedure Rules were relaxed to allow accredited journalists to report from family court proceedings before lay magistrates ~ Legal nerds can visit Practice Direction 12R – 1.3(b)iii for more information.
The rules now allow reporters to obtain a so-called Transparency Order – and without one in place I could not tell you anything about the hearing I observed. Even with one there are certain details that can’t be reported – in effect anything which might allow the public to identify the family or the child.
This isn’t the most ground breaking piece of work this site has ever published, but a good example of some of the more mundane day-to-day work that the lower courts do.
The parties, who I shall refer to as mother and father, appeared unrepresented as litigants in person.
The young person at the heart of the case is a nine-year-old girl who lives solely with the mother.
The case history is somewhat unclear, although there were mentions of previous hearings in March, May and August of this year, although none of the previous court orders had made their way to the parents, and as such they did not come prepared with witness statements for this final hearing.
Bemoaning the ‘very limited papers‘ in this case the bench chair Ms C Davidge said the court was ‘expecting statements which we haven’t received‘.
This could be grounds for the hearing to be adjourned but it transpired that the former legal representative of the father had already drafted an order. It was this document, once printed, which became the foundation for the hearing as each section was analysed, and amendments made.
What became quite clear was the tension between making an order which has force and promotes certainty, whilst still retaining enough flexibility over the next nine years. ‘We can’t micromanage peoples lives, and we’re not going to‘ is how the bench chair framed it.
Ms Davidge said ‘We try not to get too involved in the day-to-day management. The court makes orders that have to be adhered to and you’re the parents, not us.‘
Some issues, such as the father becoming named on his daughters birth certificate, were easy to agree. Paternity had already been confirmed by means of a DNA test, the court was told.
Under what grounds the father could ask for physical possession of the daughters passport less so. Exactly what weight should the word ‘reasonable’ mean when placed before ‘request’ took up a few minutes of court time. (The court concluded the order should read the passport should be handed over ‘upon request’).
We were told that contact between the father and his daughter had been successful, with visits every other weekend ordered to continue going forward. Times when the father communicated he would be late returning were handled well and praised by Ms Davidge – ‘You are being very flexible parents because you are putting your daughter front and centre.’
As to who should be able to have the daughter on her birthday Ms Davidge said she was ‘a little bit cynical on this; you’ll have to excuse me, my children’s father used to work away and they were thrilled by the fact they could choose to have their birthdays when they wanted to, or that they would last for a week‘.
In the end the order favoured flexibility with the ball firmly in the hands of the parents, after all ‘as your daughter gets older she will tell you…we don’t want to put this in the order. It’s too prescriptive for her‘ concluded the chair.
Arrangements for school holidays were slightly more firm – with different arrangements for 1-week and 2-week holidays, weekends for the father, and alternative weeks respectively.
Ms Davidge wished the parents ‘good luck when [daughter] gets to about 12 or 13 … her priority is going to be whether you are going to take her there, not whether you will be there‘.
The proposed script for family events was taken out of the order in its entirety, with the parents encouraged to communicate with one another, as ‘we don’t want to set anyone up to fail‘.
As for indirect contact the mother indicated she was buying the daughter an iPad for Christmas, and she explained this would allow the father to have video calls with his daughter during the week.
It was explained that some of the lines within the order would be accompanied with a clause which allowed them to be varied by consent. Any breaches of the order could lead to an application back in court but ‘most of the time we never see you again – which is fantastic‘.
Trainee legal advisor Ms K Birch explained that she would type up the completed order either that day or the next, and that it should be sealed by the court within two-weeks.
With a parting ‘may we wish you the best of luck‘ the hearing ended.
Ms C Davidge, bench chair, sitting with Ms A Everdene and Ms C Barron. Trainee legal advisor Ms K Birch
Central Family Court, First Avenue House
10/12/2025 10.00am
Mouse in the Court 