L (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 238 (21 February 2018)

L (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 238 (21 February 2018)

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the judge's findings on threshold and welfare were supported by substantial evidence, expert input, and proper application of legal principles. The judge's discretion in case management and evaluation of evidence was not flawed. The finely balanced welfare determination regarding A's placement was not appealable as the evidence could support either option, and the judge gave appropriate weight to A's wishes and feelings. No procedural unfairness or error was established.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 238
Parties
Subject: L (A Child); 1st Appellant: The Parent; 2nd Appellant: The Grandparents; 1st Respondent: London Borough of Wandsworth; 2nd Respondent: The Parent; 3rd and 4th Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (family Division) / Permission to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused for both mother and grandparents.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Special Guardianship, Parental Alienation, Welfare of Children, Expert Evidence, Threshold Criteria, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Special Guardianship Parental Alienation Welfare of Children Expert Evidence Threshold Criteria +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L (A Child)

Subject

The Parent

1st Appellant

The Grandparents

2nd Appellant

London Borough of Wandsworth

1st Respondent

The Parent

2nd Respondent

Children's Guardian

3rd and 4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (family Division) / Permission to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in making care orders for two children
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly consider expert evidence and parental alienation
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to treat the two children separately

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the judge's findings on threshold and welfare were supported by substantial evidence, expert input, and proper application of legal principles. The judge's discretion in case management and evaluation of evidence was not flawed. The finely balanced welfare determination regarding A's placement was not appealable as the evidence could support either option, and the judge gave appropriate weight to A's wishes and feelings. No procedural unfairness or error was established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused for both mother and grandparents.

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal dismissed.
  • No re-opening of welfare determination.