M (A Child)

M (A Child)

The allegations of bias were not sufficiently arguable to justify setting aside the judge's orders; the refusal to order a further CAFCASS report was within the judge's discretion; the section 91(14) order was justified but should be limited to three years to ensure proportionality.

Parties
Applicant Mother: MM; Respondent Father: KM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on residence order; permission granted and appeal allowed in part on section 91(14) order to impose a three-year moratorium.
Legal Topics
Child Residence, Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Judicial Bias, CAFCASS Reports

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM

Applicant Mother

KM

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the judge was biased against the applicant mother
  2. 2 Whether refusal to order a further CAFCASS report was proper
  3. 3 Whether a section 91(14) order was justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The allegations of bias were not sufficiently arguable to justify setting aside the judge's orders; the refusal to order a further CAFCASS report was within the judge's discretion; the section 91(14) order was justified but should be limited to three years to ensure proportionality.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on residence order; permission granted and appeal allowed in part on section 91(14) order to impose a three-year moratorium.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused in relation to the residence order.
  • Permission to appeal granted in relation to the section 91(14) order.