G (A Child)

G (A Child)

The judge was entitled to make the order permitting contact between Aidan and Brian’s parents based on the evidence and the welfare analysis conducted. Although the reasoning regarding Brian’s parents was brief, the judgment as a whole demonstrated sufficient consideration of the relevant issues, and there was no serious procedural error warranting appellate intervention.

Parties
Applicant: Brian; 1st Respondent: Jane; 2nd Respondent: Carol
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibility, Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Parental Responsibility Children Act 1989

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian

Applicant

Jane

1st Respondent

Carol

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in making a child arrangements order permitting contact between the child and the applicant's parents, who were not parties to the proceedings and had no legal standing.
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to conduct a sufficient welfare analysis before making the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to make the order permitting contact between Aidan and Brian’s parents based on the evidence and the welfare analysis conducted. Although the reasoning regarding Brian’s parents was brief, the judgment as a whole demonstrated sufficient consideration of the relevant issues, and there was no serious procedural error warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The child arrangements order, including provision for contact with Brian’s parents, stands.