B (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1225 (19 July 2002)

B (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1225 (19 July 2002)

The trial judge was plainly wrong to refuse the interim care order in light of uncontradicted expert evidence of risk of emotional harm to the children, failed to properly consider the public law dimension, and committed procedural errors including refusing to hear the guardian ad litem and attaching impermissible conditions to the residence order.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1225
Parties
Appellant/local Authority: London Borough of Camden; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third and Fourth Respondents: Guardian ad Litem
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court Family Division / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Shared Residence Orders, Emotional Abuse, Procedural Fairness, Expert Evidence, Public Law Vs Private Law in Child Proceedings
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Shared Residence Orders Emotional Abuse Procedural Fairness Expert Evidence Public Law Vs Private Law in Child Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Camden

Appellant/local Authority

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Guardian ad Litem

Third and Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court Family Division / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant an interim care order for the children
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly consider expert evidence regarding risk of emotional harm
  3. 3 Whether the judge's procedural management, including refusal to hear the guardian ad litem, was flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was plainly wrong to refuse the interim care order in light of uncontradicted expert evidence of risk of emotional harm to the children, failed to properly consider the public law dimension, and committed procedural errors including refusing to hear the guardian ad litem and attaching impermissible conditions to the residence order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interim care order substituted for the order of the High Court judge
  • No order for costs save detailed assessment of Community Legal Services Funding Certificates