Anonymised accounts of family law matters our team has worked on: what the family was facing, and what the law and the court looked at. Names, dates, places and identifying details are changed or left out, and every account is published with the client's consent.
An unmarried father stayed involved in his child's life, but the mother did not agree to a parental responsibility agreement. Why being named on a birth certificate does not always give parental responsibility, and why it decides nothing about time with the child.
Separated parents supported different specialist placements for their child after the local authority issued a draft EHC plan. How the family court can settle which position the parents take, why only the local authority or the Tribunal decides the school, and why the education deadline comes first.
When two adults share a family home with children and one says the other's behaviour makes sharing it unsafe or unworkable. How occupation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 decide who may live in the home, and how the balance of harm test weighs the effect on children.
Parents going through a divorce could not agree how their children's time should be organised across the school week, weekends and holidays. Why agreeing does not automatically lead to a court order, and what a written parenting plan can and cannot do.
A child travelled abroad with both parents' agreement for a family visit, which was then treated as an indefinite move. How the Hague Convention applies to a child kept abroad, why the one-year point matters, and why a return order does not decide where a child lives.
A child stopped seeing one parent after an allegation that the parent was misusing drugs. Why testing is expert evidence that needs the court's permission, why the court cannot make an adult be tested, and how a phased return to contact is built.
Parents who both held parental responsibility disagreed about a proposed course of medical treatment for their child, and the clinical team could not proceed. How a specific issue order under the Children Act 1989 breaks that deadlock, and how the position changes once a child reaches sixteen.
A grandparent had taken on a child's day-to-day care during a period of significant change within the family. How a special guardianship order under the Children Act 1989 gives a grandparent durable authority while the parents keep parental responsibility, and why three months' notice comes first.
A child was reluctant to spend time with one parent, who said the other parent's behaviour had caused it. Why parental alienation is not a legal test, and how the court finds out what actually lies behind a child's reluctance before deciding arrangements.
Repeated applications about the same child meant the other parent had to respond and attend hearings each time, reopening arrangements already decided. How a court can require a named person to seek its permission before making further applications, and why that is a filter, not a bar.
Contact stopped suddenly after a disagreement about a child's day-to-day care. Why the delay principle in the Children Act 1989 matters so much when contact has ceased, and how a case can move from no contact to shared care.
A very young child was distressed by contact against a background of controlling behaviour. What Practice Direction 12J requires the court to be satisfied of before it orders contact, and how a barring order on further applications works.
One parent said they would take a very young child abroad permanently. How a child arrangements order and a prohibited steps order under the Children Act 1989 are used to protect a child, and what the court weighs when contact has lapsed for a long time.
Every case turns on its own facts, so no story here predicts or promises the outcome of another.
We are a team of legally trained family law and divorce specialists with years of experience across all areas of family law. We are not part of a firm of solicitors, do not undertake legal reserved activities unless permitted and are therefore entirely independent. Please subscribe to our mailing list.
![Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34: What It Really Decided](https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Prest-v-Petrodel-1024x572.jpg)
![Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42: What It Decided](https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Radmacher-v-Granatino-1024x572.jpg)
A few things we have shared lately. Plain answers, quiet updates, and the occasional reminder that you are not the first person to stand where you are standing.
Kabir Family Law, the start of the bright side of life.
View this Facebook post, opens in a new tab
When the roots are deep there is no reason to fear the wind.
View this Instagram post, opens in a new tab
Kabir Family Law brings hope to families in times of crisis.
View this X post, opens in a new tab
You are never truly alone. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is ask…
View this Facebook post, opens in a new tab
Would you rather talk it through with someone?
Book a free consultationThe first conversation with one of our family law specialists costs nothing.
12 Cathedral Rd
Pontcanna
Cardiff
CF11 9LJ
Friars House,
Coventry
CV1 2TE
Chester House
1st and 3rd Floors
81 - 83 Fulham High Street
Fulham
London
SW63JA
16 High Holborn
Holborn
London
WC1V6BX
Clavering House
Clavering Place
Newcastle upon Tyne
Tyne and Wear
NE1 3NG
20-30a Abington Street
Northampton
NN1 2JA
2 King St
Nottingham
NG1 2AS
1 & 3 Kings Meadow
Oxford
OX2 0DP
2 Copenhagen St
Worcester
WR1 2HB
Tower Court
3 Oakdale Road
North Yorkshire
York
YO30 4XL
You do not need the right words. Tell us what is happening, or pick whatever comes closest.
What is happening?
