AM v Local Authority & Anor

AM v Local Authority & Anor

The judge's decision to prioritise the physical safety of the children over cultural and religious matching in foster placement was within the ambit of reasonable judicial discretion. The judge gave adequate reasons, considered all relevant evidence, and was entitled to prefer the evidence of the cultural expert and guardian over that of the psychologist. No error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion was demonstrated.

Parties
Appellant: AM; 1st Respondent: Local Authority; 2nd Respondent: The Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Law Care Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Parental Responsibility, Child Welfare, Judicial Discretion, Cultural and Religious Considerations, Expert Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Parental Responsibility Child Welfare Judicial Discretion Cultural and Religious Considerations Expert Evidence

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

Appellant

Local Authority

1st Respondent

The Children’s Guardian

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing the applicant's application for adjournment for psychological assessments
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to assess physical and emotional risks in alternative placements
  3. 3 Whether the judge gave undue priority to physical safety over emotional/cultural needs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to prioritise the physical safety of the children over cultural and religious matching in foster placement was within the ambit of reasonable judicial discretion. The judge gave adequate reasons, considered all relevant evidence, and was entitled to prefer the evidence of the cultural expert and guardian over that of the psychologist. No error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Final care orders for the children remain in force