K (Children)

K (Children)

The judge was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that direct contact between the father and the children was not in the children's best interests due to their entrenched hostility and distress, and that further attempts at direct contact would be damaging. The refusal of direct contact was a proportionate interference with the father's Article 8 rights, justified by the need to protect the children's welfare. There was no breach of Article 6 given the complexity and history of the case. The application for permission to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Applicant/father: Mr K; Respondent/mother: Mother (name withheld); Respondents/children and Guardian: Children (L and S)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Committal for Breach of Contact, Welfare of the Child, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Contact Orders Committal for Breach of Contact Welfare of the Child Article 6 ECHR Article 8 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr K

Applicant/father

Mother (name withheld)

Respondent/mother

Children (L and S)

Respondents/children and Guardian

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing direct contact between the father and his children
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of direct contact breached the father's rights under Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the delay in proceedings breached Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that direct contact between the father and the children was not in the children's best interests due to their entrenched hostility and distress, and that further attempts at direct contact would be damaging. The refusal of direct contact was a proportionate interference with the father's Article 8 rights, justified by the need to protect the children's welfare. There was no breach of Article 6 given the complexity and history of the case. The application for permission to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs
  • No direct contact between father and children until further order