F & H (children), Re

F & H (children), Re

The judge at first instance applied the correct legal tests, gave proper weight to the unanimous professional evidence, and exercised her discretion within the permissible range. There was no error of law, procedural unfairness, or evidence of bias. The welfare of the children required adoption, and the applicant's Article 8 rights did not override the children's best interests. The application for permission to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant/father: Mr MDH; Mother/respondent: AH; Applicant in Lower Court: Liverpool City Council (Local Authority)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Care and Adoption / Application for Permission to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Adoption, Judicial Discretion, Article 8 ECHR, Appeals
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Adoption Judicial Discretion Article 8 ECHR Appeals

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr MDH

Applicant/father

AH

Mother/respondent

Liverpool City Council (Local Authority)

Applicant in Lower Court

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Care and Adoption / Application for Permission to Appeal (refused)

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 evidence and Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the judge was biased

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the correct legal tests, gave proper weight to the unanimous professional evidence, and exercised her discretion within the permissible range. There was no error of law, procedural unfairness, or evidence of bias. The welfare of the children required adoption, and the applicant's Article 8 rights did not override the children's best interests. The application for permission to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No further orders