C (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 1774 (13 October 2011)

C (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 1774 (13 October 2011)

The judge exercised his discretion properly, considered all relevant evidence including the mother's behaviour, the children's wishes, and expert reports, and was entitled to make the orders under s34(4) and s91(14) of the Children Act 1989. No error of law or process was identified, and the appeal disclosed no grounds to overturn the orders.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1774
Parties
Appellant (mother): DC; First Respondent (local Authority): Worcester County Council; Second and Third Respondents: V and E (Children, through Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal From Worcester County Court to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Section 34(4) Children Act 1989, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Care Orders, Welfare of the Child, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Child Law Contact Orders Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Care Orders Welfare of the Child Judicial Discretion

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DC

Appellant (mother)

Worcester County Council

First Respondent (local Authority)

V and E (Children, through Children's Guardian)

Second and Third Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal From Worcester County Court to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in law or discretion in making orders under s34(4) and s91(14) of the Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether too much weight was given to the mother's past behaviour and the children's expressed wishes
  3. 3 Whether refusal to order further psychological assessment was an error

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised his discretion properly, considered all relevant evidence including the mother's behaviour, the children's wishes, and expert reports, and was entitled to make the orders under s34(4) and s91(14) of the Children Act 1989. No error of law or process was identified, and the appeal disclosed no grounds to overturn the orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order under s34(4) Children Act 1989 excusing the local authority from further contact provision stands
  • Order under s91(14) Children Act 1989 restricting further applications for contact without permission stands