K (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 1691 (29 November 2005)

K (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 1691 (29 November 2005)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge was entitled, on the evidence, to refuse a residence order and direct contact, as the children's welfare was paramount and all professional evidence indicated that direct contact would be harmful. There was no breach of Article 8 or Article 6 ECHR. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1691
Parties
Applicant/father: Mr K; Respondent/mother: Mother (name not stated); Respondents/children and Guardian: L and S (children)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a High Court (family Division) Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibility, Committal for Contempt, Children Act 1989, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Contact Orders Parental Responsibility Committal for Contempt Children Act 1989 Article 6 ECHR +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr K

Applicant/father

Mother (name not stated)

Respondent/mother

L and S (children)

Respondents/children and Guardian

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a High Court (family Division) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing a residence order to the father
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing direct contact between the father and children
  3. 3 Whether the refusal of direct contact breached the father's Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge was entitled, on the evidence, to refuse a residence order and direct contact, as the children's welfare was paramount and all professional evidence indicated that direct contact would be harmful. There was no breach of Article 8 or Article 6 ECHR. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order for costs
  • No order for direct contact