S (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 179 (1 February 2002)

S (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 179 (1 February 2002)

The judge's refusal to make a shared residence order was a proper exercise of discretion, supported by the evidence that the children were not, in reality, living with both parents. The arrangements for contact and the prohibited steps order sufficiently protected the father's parental responsibility and rights under the ECHR. The application for a shared residence order would have misrepresented the children's actual living situation and risked confusion and emotional harm. No procedural unfairness or legal error was established.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 179
Parties
Applicant/father: Mr S; Respondent/mother: Mother (name not provided)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Proceedings (residence/contact) / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Shared Residence, Contact Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Parental Responsibility, Human Rights (article 6, Article 8, Article 14 Echr)
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Shared Residence Contact Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Parental Responsibility Human Rights (article 6, Article 8, Article 14 Echr)

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

Mr S

Applicant/father

Mother (name not provided)

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Proceedings (residence/contact) / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing a shared residence order in favour of the father and mother
  2. 2 Whether the sole residence order to the mother breached the father's or children's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 6, 8, 14)
  3. 3 Whether the judge's discretionary decision on contact and residence was plainly wrong or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to make a shared residence order was a proper exercise of discretion, supported by the evidence that the children were not, in reality, living with both parents. The arrangements for contact and the prohibited steps order sufficiently protected the father's parental responsibility and rights under the ECHR. The application for a shared residence order would have misrepresented the children's actual living situation and risked confusion and emotional harm. No procedural unfairness or legal error was established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused.
  • Transcript of judgment to be provided to both parties at public expense.