H (A Minor) [1998] EWCA Civ 98 (29 January 1998)

H (A Minor) [1998] EWCA Civ 98 (29 January 1998)

The judge erred by failing to make necessary findings of fact regarding the alleged threat and the risk of abduction, which are critical to assessing the justification for supervised contact. However, the Court of Appeal declined to substitute its own order due to lack of first-hand evidence and instead directed a family assistance order as an exceptional measure, leaving the existing contact order in place.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 98
Parties
Child: SH (A Minor); Father/appellant: JH; Mother/respondent: W (mother)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Cardiff County Court Order on Contact Arrangements
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Residence Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Risk of Abduction, Welfare of the Child, Family Assistance Orders
Family Law Child Law Child Contact Residence Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Risk of Abduction Welfare of the Child Family Assistance Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SH (A Minor)

Child

JH

Father/appellant

W (mother)

Mother/respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Cardiff County Court Order on Contact Arrangements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred by failing to assess the actual risk of abduction and by failing to make findings of fact regarding alleged threats by the father
  2. 2 Whether contact should remain supervised at a contact centre or move to unsupervised contact at the father's home

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by failing to make necessary findings of fact regarding the alleged threat and the risk of abduction, which are critical to assessing the justification for supervised contact. However, the Court of Appeal declined to substitute its own order due to lack of first-hand evidence and instead directed a family assistance order as an exceptional measure, leaving the existing contact order in place.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Family assistance order naming the father, mother, and child for six months under section 16 of the Children Act 1989
  • No order for costs