M-H (Children)
The judge's findings of inappropriate sexual boundaries were justified by the evidence and did not amount to mere suspicion. The judge properly excluded unsubstantiated allegations and mapped out a proportionate way forward. There was no error warranting appellate intervention.
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant (Father); Respondent: Respondent (Mother)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Children Act Proceedings (family Law) / Appeal From Judgment of HHJ Horowitz Qc, Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Inappropriate Sexual Boundaries, Supervised Contact, Procedural Orders in Split Trials, Appeal Time Limits
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Appellant (Father)
Appellant
Respondent (Mother)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (family Law) / Appeal From Judgment of HHJ Horowitz Qc, Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge erred in finding inappropriate sexual boundaries by the father
- 2 Whether the findings justified supervised contact
- 3 Whether suspicion was impermissibly elevated to proof
Ratio Decidendi
The judge's findings of inappropriate sexual boundaries were justified by the evidence and did not amount to mere suspicion. The judge properly excluded unsubstantiated allegations and mapped out a proportionate way forward. There was no error warranting appellate intervention.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Supervised contact to continue as per order of 15 December 2005.
- Parties encouraged to pursue therapeutic family work.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment