W (A Child), Re

W (A Child), Re

The Justices misdirected themselves in law by conflating the applications for contact and parental responsibility and by refusing parental responsibility based on speculative anxiety rather than objective evidence. The appeal is allowed to the extent that a parental responsibility order is made in favour of the father.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant father; Respondent: Respondent mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Contact, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Parental Responsibility Child Contact Welfare of the Child

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant father

Appellant

Respondent mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of parental responsibility and direct contact was justified
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts misapplied the law regarding parental responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

The Justices misdirected themselves in law by conflating the applications for contact and parental responsibility and by refusing parental responsibility based on speculative anxiety rather than objective evidence. The appeal is allowed to the extent that a parental responsibility order is made in favour of the father.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Parental responsibility order granted to the father
  • Refusal of direct contact order upheld