L (a child), Re

L (a child), Re

The judge had jurisdiction to make the orders under appeal. The refusal to permit a change of surname was justified by the child's welfare and identity needs. The order for supervised contact with the mother was within the judge's discretion, given the family dynamics and the need for certainty and safety. Indirect contact with the father was appropriate, but the order required clarification regarding frequency and suitability of presents. Refusal to permit disclosure to a psychiatrist was correct in the absence of sufficient grounds.

Parties
Applicants/special Guardians: Maternal Grandparents (GP); Respondent/birth Mother: Mother (M); Respondent/birth Father: Father (F); Guardian/child: Guardian/Child (E); Respondent/local Authority: London Borough of Wandsworth (Local Authority)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family) / Appeal From Family Division, Judgment on Permission and Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Special Guardianship Orders, Contact Orders, Change of Child's Surname, Disclosure to Experts, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Special Guardianship Orders Contact Orders Change of Child's Surname Disclosure to Experts Parental Responsibility

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maternal Grandparents (GP)

Applicants/special Guardians

Mother (M)

Respondent/birth Mother

Father (F)

Respondent/birth Father

Guardian/Child (E)

Guardian/child

London Borough of Wandsworth (Local Authority)

Respondent/local Authority

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family) / Appeal From Family Division, Judgment on Permission and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in refusing permission to change the child's surname
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in ordering supervised contact between the child and mother
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in providing for indirect contact with the father

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had jurisdiction to make the orders under appeal. The refusal to permit a change of surname was justified by the child's welfare and identity needs. The order for supervised contact with the mother was within the judge's discretion, given the family dynamics and the need for certainty and safety. Indirect contact with the father was appropriate, but the order required clarification regarding frequency and suitability of presents. Refusal to permit disclosure to a psychiatrist was correct in the absence of sufficient grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Refusal to change the child's surname upheld
  • Order for supervised contact with mother upheld but clarified to last one year only