S (a child), Re [2004] EWCA Civ 18 (28 January 2004)

S (a child), Re [2004] EWCA Civ 18 (28 January 2004)

The Recorder erred in closing the door on direct contact and imposing a section 91(14) order without sufficient justification. The welfare of the child required further exploration of the family dynamics through a joint psychiatric assessment before abandoning attempts at contact. The section 91(14) order was disproportionate and not supported by evidence of unacceptable strain or risk.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 18
Parties
Subject: Re S (A child); Appellant's Counsel: Ms J. Richards; Respondent's Counsel: Mr G. Ford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Section 8 Applications, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Domestic Violence, Human Rights (article 8)
Family Law Child Law Contact Orders Section 8 Applications Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility Domestic Violence +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Re S (A child)

Subject

Ms J. Richards

Appellant's Counsel

Mr G. Ford

Respondent's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in dismissing the father's application for direct contact with his daughter
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing a psychological assessment of the child/family
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder erred in imposing a section 91(14) bar on further applications by the father

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in closing the door on direct contact and imposing a section 91(14) order without sufficient justification. The welfare of the child required further exploration of the family dynamics through a joint psychiatric assessment before abandoning attempts at contact. The section 91(14) order was disproportionate and not supported by evidence of unacceptable strain or risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Parties to jointly instruct a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist to assess the family and prospects of future contact.
  • Case to be restored to a circuit judge for directions after the psychiatric report is filed, preferably before a judge able to provide continuity.