M (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 132 (17 January 2013)

M (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 132 (17 January 2013)

The appeals were dismissed because the judge below had properly considered the welfare of each child, gave due weight to their wishes, and found that the risk to the children from contact with parents convicted of torture outweighed any arguments for variation. No procedural or substantive error was found in the original decision.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 132
Parties
First Applicant: Mother; First Respondent: Local Authority; Second Respondent: Father; Third Respondent: Child (Christopher); Fourth Respondent: Child (Ephraim) via Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Leeds County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Care Orders, Variation of Contact, Welfare of the Child, Deportation, Parental Rights After Conviction
Family Law Child Protection Contact Orders Care Orders Variation of Contact Welfare of the Child Deportation Parental Rights After Conviction

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

First Applicant

Local Authority

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Child (Christopher)

Third Respondent

Child (Ephraim) via Guardian

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Leeds County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to vary the order refusing parental contact was justified
  2. 2 Whether the wishes and feelings of the children were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether procedural errors affected the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the judge below had properly considered the welfare of each child, gave due weight to their wishes, and found that the risk to the children from contact with parents convicted of torture outweighed any arguments for variation. No procedural or substantive error was found in the original decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; original order refusing contact stands