Section 91A and repeated applications — the Children Act rules on permission

REVIEWED BY: Sean McNamara on 2026-08-30

Section 91(14) orders (barring orders) stop repeated applications, but the Children Act 1989 also contains a wider framework — section 91A — governing when permission is needed to bring applications at all, and how courts treat people who apply again and again. This guide explains the permission landscape. It is general information, not legal advice.

What section 91A does

Inserted by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 91A requires courts, when considering whether to give permission for a Children Act application (including where a s.91(14) order is in force), to consider whether the applicant:

has provided evidence of a change of circumstances or other material change since the previous application or proceedings; and
whether the application is capable of benefiting the child.

The court must consider these matters — they are statutory factors, not optional considerations. Section 91A also defines the "child concerned" for the purpose of these provisions.

Permission requirements across the Children Act

Different applicants need permission for different applications:

A person with parental responsibility, or a child arrangements lives-with order holder: may apply for most s.8 orders without permission
Other people — grandparents, step-parents without PR, other relatives, family friends: need the court's permission (leave) to apply for a child arrangements order. The court looks at the applicant's connection with the child, the nature of the application, and whether it might disrupt the child's life to the child's detriment
Anyone subject to a s.91(14) barring order: needs the court's permission for the applications the order specifies — the filter this guide's companion page covers
Local authorities and guardians: specific statutory routes apply

When permission may be refused

Courts refuse permission where:

the application is vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of process — including applications designed to harass or continue coercive control
there is no arguable benefit to the child — repeating an application that was recently refused, with no new evidence
the applicant's connection with the child is too remote
the disruption to the child outweighs any possible gain

Where someone has repeatedly litigated, courts can — and do — impose Civil Restraint Orders (limiting further applications) alongside or instead of s.91(14) orders.

If you need permission to apply

1. Show what's changed — a material change in circumstances is the single most persuasive element (a new risk, the child's expressed wishes, a failed arrangement, a new assessment) 2. Frame the benefit to the child — the court grants permission for children's sake, not adults' rights; your statement should answer "what does the child gain?" 3. Be realistic about history — if previous findings went against you, address them head-on with fresh evidence rather than re-litigating 4. Apply on the right form — permission is sought within the application itself (C100) or on a separate application as directed

If someone repeatedly applies against you

Apply for a s.91(14) barring order (see our dedicated guide)
Ask the court to consider a Civil Restraint Order
Reference Practice Direction 12Q, which directs courts to consider these orders early where proceedings are being used as a means of harassment or abuse
Keep a chronology of applications — a documented pattern is far more persuasive than assertion

Official links

YourFamilyCase.co.uk is an independent information directory — we are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to HMCTS, the judiciary, or gov.uk. This page is general information and is not legal advice.

Content verified against the official HMCTS court directory, gov.uk forms and fees pages, and the professional body registers (SRA, FMC, Bar Council). Last reviewed September 2026.