F & H (children), Re [2007] EWCA Civ 880 (24 August 2007)

F & H (children), Re [2007] EWCA Civ 880 (24 August 2007)

The judge at first instance applied the correct legal principles, gave proper weight to the unanimous professional evidence, and exercised her discretion within the permissible range. There was no error of law or plainly wrong decision. The welfare of the children required adoption and outweighed the applicant's Article 8 rights. The application for permission to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 880
Parties
Applicant/father: Mr MDH; Mother/respondent: AH; Applicant in Original Proceedings: Liverpool City Council (Local Authority)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Law – Children – Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Parental Responsibility, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Discretion, Appeals Process
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Parental Responsibility Article 8 ECHR Judicial Discretion +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr MDH

Applicant/father

AH

Mother/respondent

Liverpool City Council (Local Authority)

Applicant in Original Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Family Law – Children – Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making care and placement orders for adoption under the Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider the applicant's Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the judge was biased

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the correct legal principles, gave proper weight to the unanimous professional evidence, and exercised her discretion within the permissible range. There was no error of law or plainly wrong decision. The welfare of the children required adoption and outweighed the applicant's Article 8 rights. The application for permission to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is dismissed.