FM (A Child)

FM (A Child)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance conducted a thorough and balanced analysis of all relevant risks and factors, including the mother's mental health, the father's drug use and volatility, the parents' hostility towards the special guardians, and the need for F's stability. The making of a special guardianship order was a necessary and proportionate interference with Article 8 rights to ensure F's welfare, and the judge's decision was within his discretion and not wrong.

Parties
Appellant (mother): JM; First Respondent (local Authority): Bournemouth Borough Council; Second Respondent (father): D; Third Respondent (child, Represented by Guardian): FM (by his children’s guardian); Fourth and Fifth Respondents (special Guardians): Mr and Mrs W
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Final Order (special Guardianship Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Guardianship Orders, Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life), Welfare of the Child, Delay in Child Proceedings, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Special Guardianship Orders Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life) Welfare of the Child Delay in Child Proceedings Contact Arrangements

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JM

Appellant (mother)

Bournemouth Borough Council

First Respondent (local Authority)

D

Second Respondent (father)

FM (by his children’s guardian)

Third Respondent (child, Represented by Guardian)

Mr and Mrs W

Fourth and Fifth Respondents (special Guardians)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Final Order (special Guardianship Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the making of a special guardianship order was a necessary and proportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the parents and child
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider the reality of the situation created by the order, including the risk of loss of relationship between F and his parents
  3. 3 Whether the judge placed undue weight on the need to avoid delay, given the evidence about the mother's prognosis and available support

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance conducted a thorough and balanced analysis of all relevant risks and factors, including the mother's mental health, the father's drug use and volatility, the parents' hostility towards the special guardians, and the need for F's stability. The making of a special guardianship order was a necessary and proportionate interference with Article 8 rights to ensure F's welfare, and the judge's decision was within his discretion and not wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Special guardianship order in favour of Mr and Mrs W affirmed
  • One year supervision order