K (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 1064 (20 July 2011)

K (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 1064 (20 July 2011)

The judge's decision to refuse direct contact between the father and the children was within the ambit of reasonable judicial discretion, given the risks posed by the father's history of sexual offences, the young age of the children, the confusion and potential harm to their welfare, and the absence of compelling evidence that further expert input would alter the outcome. The balancing exercise was properly conducted and the refusal to adjourn for expert evidence was not plainly wrong.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1064
Parties
Appellant (father): MK; Respondent (mother): HK; Respondent (local Authority): LB Bromley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal From Final Order of Bromley County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Welfare of the Child, Section 8 Children Act 1989, Section 31 Children Act 1989, Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Judicial Discretion in Contact Cases
Family Law Child Protection Contact Orders Welfare of the Child Section 8 Children Act 1989 Section 31 Children Act 1989 Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Judicial Discretion in Contact Cases

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MK

Appellant (father)

HK

Respondent (mother)

LB Bromley

Respondent (local Authority)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal From Final Order of Bromley County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing direct contact between father and children
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to adjourn for expert psychiatric evidence
  3. 3 Whether the balancing exercise regarding contact was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to refuse direct contact between the father and the children was within the ambit of reasonable judicial discretion, given the risks posed by the father's history of sexual offences, the young age of the children, the confusion and potential harm to their welfare, and the absence of compelling evidence that further expert input would alter the outcome. The balancing exercise was properly conducted and the refusal to adjourn for expert evidence was not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No direct contact between father and children
  • Children to reside with mother under a supervision order for 12 months (not appealed)