CP v M & Ors - Prioritising the wishes and feelings of children in Family cases

The five boys (aged between 11 and 16) were all British citizens who moved to a Gulf state with one of their mothers (M) in 2015 after the relationship between the two women had broken down. The civil partnership was dissolved in 2016 by English proceedings, with the Family Court recording that CP would pay child maintenance to M for ‘the children of the family’. From 2019, CP’s time with the children reduced. She last saw the eldest child in December 2020 and the four younger children in December 2021. The Judge decided that continuing proceedings and forcing the children to spend time with CP would cause them more harm than good, given that the children had consistently expressed that that was against their wishes.

CP had begun court proceedings in February 2022. The case raised questions around whether the English courts were the correct forum for the case, CP’s parental status and her rights to see the children. The Court of Appeal recognised CP as the legal parent of the four younger children and England and Wales as being the correct forum because the civil partnership proceedings had taken place here. The main question was then around the appropriateness of enforcing time between CP and the children.

In the February 2025 proceedings, the court appointed a Guardian for the children, whose role was to speak on their behalf. The boys described CP to their Guardian as ‘manipulative’, remembered her ‘shouting’, and said she tried to buy their affection. They viewed her as a ‘family friend’ or ‘aunty’ rather than as their parent. They were clear that M had actively encouraged them to spend time with CP when they did not want to but that from 2019, they had been firm that that was against their wishes. They were also clear in expressing that they did not want to spend any time with her. CP believed that she had been an active, caring and supportive parent and blamed M for not facilitating a relationship between her and the children.

The Guardian was concerned that the longer proceedings went on and the more CP pushed for a role in the boys’ lives, the more the boys will not want a relationship with her which could result in the relationships becoming irreparable in the future. The Guardian believed that this was causing the boys deep distress, that it was not in the boys’ best interests to continue the lengthy, protracted proceedings and that the situation was causing them emotional harm.

CP withdrew her application in relation to the eldest child but wanted to continue with her application to spend time with the four younger boys.

The Judge decided against ordering that the children should spend time with CP and said that memory boxes should be made for each child so CP can send them letters, cards and photographs. He also ordered regular updates from M to CP about each child’s health, welfare and education, and said he would write a letter explaining his decision to each child.

This case offers insights to those navigating significant change to their family life, whether at the outset of relationship breakdown involving children or during Family proceedings.

It highlights the challenges in balancing parental rights with the court’s primary concern of children’s welfare, particularly in international contexts and where the family dynamic is complex. It also serves as a warning of the potential harm of prolonged legal disputes.

This case also serves as a reminder of the great importance of listening to the feelings and wishes of the children and young people at the centre of the dispute, something which will concern parents who want to limit the damage caused to children involved in parental conflict and court proceedings. The judgment of Mr Justice Poole makes it clear that weight will be placed on the views of children affected by proceedings such as these where they are old enough to express their views and understand the implications of their preferences:

‘It is important to listen to the voice of the child and each child in this case is saying loudly and clearly that they want these proceedings to end.’

This is a clear example of a family case where the children’s wishes and feelings were expressed, heard by the court, and their welfare was prioritised.