W (A Child), Re

W (A Child), Re

The judge's decision to refuse contact between the mother and child for a short interim period was within her discretion, given the risks identified and the support of the guardian. There was no error in law or principle justifying appellate interference.

Parties
Appellant Mother: EM; First Respondent Local Authority: Warwickshire County Council; Second Respondent Father: William W; Third Respondent: Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Interim Care Order and Contact Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Contact With Child in Care, Parental Rights, Risk Assessment
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Contact With Child in Care Parental Rights Risk Assessment

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

EM

Appellant Mother

Warwickshire County Council

First Respondent Local Authority

William W

Second Respondent Father

Children’s Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Interim Care Order and Contact Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting authority to refuse contact between mother and child during interim care period
  2. 2 Whether the risks justified denial of contact
  3. 3 Whether sufficient safeguards for contact were available

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to refuse contact between the mother and child for a short interim period was within her discretion, given the risks identified and the support of the guardian. There was no error in law or principle justifying appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; interim order of refusal of contact stands until next hearing date.