W (Children)

W (Children)

GW's applications for permission to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence are refused because there is no arguable case that McFarlane J's order was plainly wrong, no breach of Article 6 ECHR occurred, the findings of fact and exercise of discretion were justified, and the fresh evidence did not meet the required criteria. The only reason GW is not seeing his children is his own conduct, not any failure by the system or the mother.

Parties
Applicant/father: GW; Respondent/mother: PB; Children/interested Parties: Children (W and L)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Applications refused; permission to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence denied.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Parental Alienation, Mental Health and Parenting, Supervised Contact
Family Law Children Law Residence Orders Contact Orders Section 91(14) Orders Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Parental Alienation Mental Health and Parenting +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GW

Applicant/father

PB

Respondent/mother

Children (W and L)

Children/interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing before McFarlane J was unfair and breached Article 6 ECHR rights due to alleged denial of access to court bundles
  2. 2 Whether the order of 13 September 2005 by the Court of Appeal governs current contact
  3. 3 Whether there was parental alienation or maternal deceit justifying a change in residence/contact

Ratio Decidendi

GW's applications for permission to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence are refused because there is no arguable case that McFarlane J's order was plainly wrong, no breach of Article 6 ECHR occurred, the findings of fact and exercise of discretion were justified, and the fresh evidence did not meet the required criteria. The only reason GW is not seeing his children is his own conduct, not any failure by the system or the mother.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; permission to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence denied.

Orders

  • GW's and the paternal grandparents' applications for residence, shared residence, and prohibited steps orders dismissed.
  • Supervised contact between GW and the children at a contact centre once every fortnight for 2 hours; grandparents may attend every 4 weeks.