D (Children)

D (Children)

The judge did not err in law or act outside her discretion in refusing separate representation for the children, as none of the criteria in the Practice Direction were met and the CAFCASS officer could adequately present the children's wishes and feelings.

Parties
Applicant/father: Mr D.; Respondent/mother: Mother (name not provided)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Remove Jurisdiction, Separate Representation of Children, CAFCASS Officer Involvement, Welfare Checklist, Discretion of the Court
Family Law Children Law Leave to Remove Jurisdiction Separate Representation of Children CAFCASS Officer Involvement Welfare Checklist Discretion of the Court

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr D.

Applicant/father

Mother (name not provided)

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing separate representation for the children
  2. 2 Whether the judge exercised her discretion improperly in the context of a leave to remove application

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in law or act outside her discretion in refusing separate representation for the children, as none of the criteria in the Practice Direction were met and the CAFCASS officer could adequately present the children's wishes and feelings.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Copy of judgment to be provided to the applicant, the judge, the respondent, and her advisers