How should the Family Court protect a child from the wider consequences of serious abuse perpetrated against an older sibling? – Matthew Brookes-Baker, Oliver Powell and Fazeela Ishmael in A and B, Re (No. 3) [2026] EWFC 24
2nd Sep 2026 | Cases
Following findings of serious sexual abuse, coercive control and intimidation of an older sibling, the court considered the profound implications for her younger sister’s contact with their father, including long-term care, protection from future litigation and change of surname in A and B, Re (No. 3) [2026] EWFC 24.
After a father was found to have subjected his older stepdaughter, A, to serious sexual abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, the court considered the long-term welfare arrangements for her half-sister, his six-year-old biological daughter B. B, who had not seen her father for two years and did not wish to do so, was made subject to Special Guardianship Orders in favour of her maternal grandparents. The court refused the father’s application for a further expert risk assessment, finding that delay was contrary to B’s welfare and that sufficient evidence was already available.
Direct contact with the father was prohibited, although he could send letters and cards twice yearly. The court also authorised B’s surname to be changed to her mother’s surname, reflecting B’s clear wishes and distress about retaining her father’s name. Finally, a section 91(14) order was imposed until B turned sixteen, requiring the father to obtain permission before making further Children Act applications.
Oliver Powell was instructed by Careys Law for the first respondent mother. Matthew Brookes-Baker was instructed by Griffiths Robertson for the fourth respondent child (A). Fazeela Ishmael was instructed by Oxford Law Group for the fifth respondent child (B) through her Children’s Guardian.
