C (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 1424 (21 October 2010)

C (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 1424 (21 October 2010)

The appeal had no real prospect of success because the judges' decisions on interim contact and supervision were within the reasonable range of discretion, supported by expert and guardian evidence, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1424
Parties
Appellant Father: Mr M; Respondent Mother: Mother (name not provided)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (interlocutory Orders)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Interim Orders, Supervision of Contact, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Contact Interim Orders Supervision of Contact Appeals Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M

Appellant Father

Mother (name not provided)

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (interlocutory Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim contact arrangements placed children at risk by insufficient supervision
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in relaxing supervision before expert evidence was complete
  3. 3 Whether the process for filing new material was unfair to the father

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal had no real prospect of success because the judges' decisions on interim contact and supervision were within the reasonable range of discretion, supported by expert and guardian evidence, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the orders of HHJ Lea (24 March) and HHJ Hampton (3 September) refused