B (a child) O (children), Re

B (a child) O (children), Re

There was ample material before the trial judges to justify their findings that the fathers' own conduct was the cause of the breakdown in contact and that further litigation was emotionally harmful to the children. The trial judges applied the correct legal principles, gave the fathers fair hearings, and made findings of fact that were not plainly wrong. There was no breach of Article 6 or 8 ECHR rights. The applications for permission to appeal had no prospect of success and were refused.

Parties
Applicant/father: David Bradford; Subject Child: K (child); Respondent/mother: K's mother; Applicant/father: Shaun O'Connell; Subject Child: M (child); Subject Child: A (child); Respondent/mother: Children's mother (O'Connell case)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (without Notice Oral Applications)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused for both applicants; all applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Residence Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Welfare of the Child, Litigants in Person, Parental Alienation, Judicial Recusal, Mc Kenzie Friend, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Children Law Human Rights Contact Orders Residence Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Welfare of the Child Litigants in Person +5 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Bradford

Applicant/father

K (child)

Subject Child

K's mother

Respondent/mother

Shaun O'Connell

Applicant/father

M (child)

Subject Child

A (child)

Subject Child

Children's mother (O'Connell case)

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (without Notice Oral Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judges erred in refusing contact/residence orders to the applicant fathers
  2. 2 Whether the trial judges erred in imposing or continuing section 91(14) orders
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights were breached

Ratio Decidendi

There was ample material before the trial judges to justify their findings that the fathers' own conduct was the cause of the breakdown in contact and that further litigation was emotionally harmful to the children. The trial judges applied the correct legal principles, gave the fathers fair hearings, and made findings of fact that were not plainly wrong. There was no breach of Article 6 or 8 ECHR rights. The applications for permission to appeal had no prospect of success and were refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused for both applicants; all applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr. Bradford's application for permission to appeal against Judge Hunt's order of 6 February 2006 is refused.
  • Mr. O'Connell's applications for permission to appeal against Coleridge J's orders of 22 February and 29 March 2006 are refused.