G-C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 301 (27 February 2013)

G-C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 301 (27 February 2013)

The appeal was allowed because the judge made procedural errors by failing to provide sufficient reasoning for departing from the Cafcass Officer's oral recommendation, making adverse findings against the mother without hearing her evidence, and not properly considering the need for expert assessment before making orders on staying contact and travel restrictions.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 301
Parties
Appellant Mother: Ms Graham; Respondent Father: Mr Cull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Contact and Prohibited Steps Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside; case remitted for further hearing with expert assessment.
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Prohibited Steps Order, Procedural Fairness, Expert Evidence, Appeals
Family Law Child Contact Prohibited Steps Order Procedural Fairness Expert Evidence 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Graham

Appellant Mother

Mr Cull

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Contact and Prohibited Steps Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred procedurally in making a staying contact order and a prohibited steps order without sufficient reasoning and without hearing oral evidence from the mother
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly consider the Cafcass Officer's changed recommendation and the need for expert assessment
  3. 3 Whether the judge improperly restricted the mother's right to travel with the child

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge made procedural errors by failing to provide sufficient reasoning for departing from the Cafcass Officer's oral recommendation, making adverse findings against the mother without hearing her evidence, and not properly considering the need for expert assessment before making orders on staying contact and travel restrictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside; case remitted for further hearing with expert assessment.

Orders

  • Order of 20 December set aside
  • Application to be relisted for hearing