ZE23P01539 - [2025] EWHC 1403 (Fam)

Before me have been cross-applications relating to a child AB C-D between, on the one hand his birth father, E C-D, and E’s husband, F C-D (the applicants, first and second respectively), and on the other his mother G H (the respondent).

The applicants were represented by Sarah Lucy Cooper, who appears on a pro bono basis via Advocate. I am grateful to her for appearing without pay.

The respondent is represented by Emily James KC and Jessica Lee.

AB (the child) is a party to these proceedings through his Guardian, Catherine Callaghan who has been represented by James Nottage.

AB is 2½ years old and is, I am told, a healthy, happy and resilient toddler.

The issues I am asked to determine are many. I shall summarise them at this point as:

Further, in issue, it having been agreed that the child should not be circumcised, is the narrow point as to whether I should make an order or accept an undertaking from the respondent to that effect. I will deal with that immediately. I see no advantage in an order and therefore consider it appropriate to accept an undertaking.

I have had the benefit of opening documents and closing submissions from each party. I am grateful to them for their care in presenting the case to me. This judgment is written on the last day of the seven-day hearing and will be sent out in draft shortly after completion. I will not in this judgment have the time to respond to all of the arguments that have been put to me. Nor do I intend to map out a resolution of the minutiae of the different positions advanced. I shall in this judgment deal with what I see as the significant issues between the parties, giving sufficient explanation of why I am making the decisions to enable them to be understood. Where counsel consider my decisions cannot be translated into an agreed order without further rulings from me, I invite submissions in writing. The same invitation applies to any other consequential matters.