G (A Child) [2005] EWCA Civ 896 (14 July 2005)

G (A Child) [2005] EWCA Civ 896 (14 July 2005)

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's reasoning was inadequate, failed to make clear findings of fact, and did not sufficiently explain the process by which the conclusion was reached. The judge's main conclusion that the grandparents' poor parenting made them an unacceptable risk was in direct conflict with his findings that he could not decide the extent to which their care fell below an acceptable standard. The assessment of the grandparents was unfair and inadequately scrutinised.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 896
Parties
Appellants: Mr and Mrs G; Supporting Appellant: D; Respondents: Buckinghamshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Milton Keynes County Court, Order of 21 February 2005
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a High Court judge.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Adoption, Grandparental Rights, Judicial Reasoning, Burden of Proof
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Residence Orders Contact Orders Adoption Grandparental Rights Judicial Reasoning +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs G

Appellants

D

Supporting Appellant

Buckinghamshire County Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Milton Keynes County Court, Order of 21 February 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's reasoning and fact-finding justified the removal of H from her family and the refusal of the grandparents' application for residence and contact orders
  2. 2 Whether the assessment of the grandparents as carers was fair and adequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's reasoning was inadequate, failed to make clear findings of fact, and did not sufficiently explain the process by which the conclusion was reached. The judge's main conclusion that the grandparents' poor parenting made them an unacceptable risk was in direct conflict with his findings that he could not decide the extent to which their care fell below an acceptable standard. The assessment of the grandparents was unfair and inadequately scrutinised.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a High Court judge.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The order of Judge Altman is set aside.