Can a Family Court Change Where a Child Lives at a DRA? B v G [2026] Explained

What did the court decide?

The dispute concerned a boy, O, then aged nine. His mother appealed a Recorder’s decision in August 2026 directing that he move from living with her to living with his father. His relationship with his father had been interrupted against the background of safeguarding concerns which police and the local authority had not substantiated. The local authority provided section 7 and section 47 material and an addendum report, ultimately recommending transfer.

The Recorder heard the social worker’s evidence and cross-examination, considered both parents’ positions and made an order for transfer. The mother obtained a stay in order to appeal. The High Court dealt with nine grounds relating to wishes and feelings, sibling bonds, parenting capacity, mental health, transition arrangements and procedural fairness.

Mrs Justice Lieven refused permission on most grounds. On the transition-plan ground she allowed the argument to be heard but dismissed the appeal. She ordered that the child move that afternoon, provided arrangements for maternal contact and required a review hearing.

What does a DRA permit the judge to do?

A DRA is designed to resolve a dispute where possible. It is not a guarantee that contested matters will be adjourned for a separately labelled final hearing. The High Court referred to Re A (Final Order at Dispute Resolution Appointment) [2025] EWCA Civ 55 and rejected any absolute rule that a change in living arrangements cannot be made at this stage.

That does not remove the requirement for fair notice, appropriate evidence and a welfare evaluation. In this case the mother’s representatives knew that the social worker was recommending transfer and neither asked the Recorder for the parents to give oral evidence. The mere fact that a hearing was relatively short did not prove a serious procedural irregularity.

For a litigant in person, the listing notice and latest reports must be read together. If a report proposes a major change, the issue is live even if the hearing label sounds procedural.

What about the child’s wishes and his sibling?

The child had expressed a wish for increased time with his father, but had not been asked whether he wished to live with him full-time. The High Court did not treat that omission as fatal. The social worker had judged that asking a nine-year-old to choose between his parents could be distressing. The child’s wishes were relevant but the child was not to bear responsibility for the final decision.

The Recorder had considered the child’s important relationship with his half-brother and the risk of distress from a sudden move. The High Court recognised that another judge might have evaluated matters differently, but that did not make the Recorder’s conclusion wrong on appeal. A welfare judgment may involve choices on which reasonable judges differ.

The transition plan and emotional harm

The local authority had proposed a two-week transition, yet the order referred to a move ‘forthwith’. The High Court accepted that departure from a proposed transition without clear reasons raised an arguable question. On the facts, however, the mother’s expressed refusal to cooperate with the planned transition, the stay granted for appeal and the risk of further emotional conflict supported the order.

The High Court was explicit that the transfer was not a punishment for non-compliance. The Recorder considered it necessary for this child’s welfare, including restoring a meaningful relationship with his father. This is an essential distinction: a child-arrangements order must be welfare-led, not a sanction designed to teach a parent a lesson.

The judgment also considered the Family Justice Council’s guidance on alienating behaviours. Mrs Justice Lieven observed that guidance is not itself law, and it should have been brought to the Recorder’s attention, but it did not alter the result here.

What can a parent do before a consequential DRA?

1. Check the recommendation: identify any proposed immediate change in care, contact or supervision.
2. Respond to the welfare analysis: deal with safety, the child’s experience, relationships, education, transition and practical support.
3. Identify disputed facts: say what cannot fairly be determined without oral evidence or further records and why that matters.
4. Propose a workable alternative: where appropriate, submit a specific transitional arrangement and safeguarding steps.
5. Ask for necessary directions in time: do not assume the court will automatically adjourn for a final hearing.
6. If considering appeal: seek prompt specialist advice about permission, the legal test, time limits and any properly justified stay.

Preparing evidence is not simply accumulating material. A short issues table mapping each disputed welfare point to its source is often more useful than an undifferentiated bundle.

Authorities and limitations

Primary source: B v G (Test for Appeal) [2026] EWHC 2668 (Fam), particularly paragraphs 27–30, 35–39 and 51–59. See also Children Act 1989, section 1 and Family Procedure Rules, Part 30.

The published judgment is anonymised. It is highly fact-specific and does not establish a presumption in favour of transfer where contact has broken down. The child’s best interests remain central.

General information about England and Wales, not case-specific legal advice. Court outcomes depend on evidence, law, procedure and judicial discretion. JSH Law Ltd is not an SRA-authorised solicitors’ firm. It provides non-reserved litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance, not conduct of litigation or rights of audience as of right.