[2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam)

This court granted a non-molestation order in favour of the father against the mother for a period of 12 months on 1 November 2024. The father seeks for this order to be extended “until further order”, subject to any variation required to facilitate such indirect contact between Adam and his mother. The mother seeks to have the order discharged on the grounds it is without justification or, in the alternative, varied so as to permit her to return to the former family home to collect various belongings she contends remain in that property.

I am satisfied that the non-molestation order should remain in force and that it should do so for the same period as the order made by Francis J pursuant to s.91(14) of the 1989 Act. A non-molestation order without limit of time would be an exceptional course for the court to take. I am however, satisfied that it is appropriate for the injunction to continue at this point in time in the context the matters that I have set out in this judgment. There is no evidence that the mother has completed the work to address the concerns regarding her state of mind and psychological profile set out by Dr Derry. As evidenced by the statement the mother filed for this hearing, the mother continues to make baseless allegations against the father and demonstrates little or no insight into the fact that the court has dealt with and rejected the matters about which the mother continues to complain.

I am likewise satisfied that the non-molestation injunction should remain in its current terms. Whilst the mother contends that the order requires to be varied to permit her to collect her belongings from the former family home, the father confirms to the court that the property has been cleared and sold, the mother already having removed all of her personal belongings. In so far as there is a difference between the parties in this regard, I accept the version provided by the father.