Case No. Case-No.-LV21P00249

35.Sections 91(14) and 91A are silent on the duration of a section 91(14) order. The Court, therefore, has a discretion as to the appropriate duration of the order. Any time limit imposed should be proportionate to the harm it is seeking to avoid. If the Court decides to make a section 91(14) order, the Court should explain its reasons for the duration ordered. Sections 91(14) and 91A give a discretion to the Court as to the types of application under the 1989 Act that can be made subject to permission from the Court. If the Court decides to make a section 91(14) order, the Court should consider which types of application should be specified in the order and it should explain its reasons.36.I have also had regard to Re A (A Child) (Supervised Contact) (Children Act 1989 Section 91(14 orders) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749. I consider this to be a compelling case for a section 91(14) order for the reasons appearing above. I intend to make a section 91(14) order to prevent the father making any application for a child arrangements order or an order for parental responsibility in respect of A for a period of 10 years. Whilst that is an exceptionally long period, in my view, this is an exceptional case because of the nature of the father’s offending, his failure to accept the convictions, his attempts to influence the mother to retract her evidence and his sophisticated, controlling personality, as I find it to be. I am satisfied that the current applications of the father have been abusive and emotionally harmful for the mother. Further applications would be likely to impact on A to an increasing extent as his awareness and understanding grows. They would impact on the mother in a harmful way and that would cause her anxiety, which A would be likely to feed off. I am, therefore, satisfied that further applications by the father, without leave, would put the mother particularly but also A at risk of harm. 37.I am making that order time-limited despite the submissions made by the mother and the Children’s Guardian that I should make it until further order because I do not consider this to be proportionate. I have decided on 10 years because, at that stage, A will be 15 years of age and will have a much greater awareness of the existence of his father. In addition, he will also begin to understand the issues in a way that means the Court would have to attach some weight to his views. At that stage, the father will need to have developed better insight into his offending and the consequences of it for his erstwhile partners and to have accepted it. That may be a forlorn hope, but it may be that the Court considers making an order for indirect contact at that stage. I have tried to hold a balance between the need to protect the mother and A whilst also factoring in the possibility that things can change sufficiently for the Court to revisit the issue of indirect contact.38.I am not satisfied that there is no hope of any change in the future. In any event, to succeed in getting leave to make such applications during the currency of a section 91(14), section 91A(4) provides,“Where a person who is named in a section 91(14) order applies for leave to make an application of a specified kind, the Court must, in determining whether to grant leave, consider whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the order was made”. I make it clear that there would have to be profound change in insight and approach to his offending behaviour demonstrated by the father to achieve this. I will, therefore, make the following orders:1)The father shall not have any form of contact with A.2)The father’s application for an order for parental responsibility is dismissed.3)The application for a non-molestation injunction is dismissed.4)I will make a section 91(14) order that no application for a child arrangement order or parental responsibility order shall be made without leave of the Court for a period of 10 years.39.Finally, the father has 21 days within which to appeal these decisions to a judge of the Family Division. That concludes this judgment.