CP v AR & Anor

CP v AR & Anor

The trial judge’s decision to make a residence order in favour of the paternal grandparents was wrong in law and principle. The judge failed to properly consider and weigh the importance of the child’s relationship with his mother and half-brother, the lack of independence and suitability of the grandparents, the absence of proper assessment, and the expert evidence. The judge gave undue weight to removing the child from parental conflict without sufficient justification for such a radical change. The appellate court was therefore duty-bound to set aside the order and substitute its own decision.

Parties
Appellant: CP (The Mother); 1st Respondent: AR (The Father); 2nd Respondent: CR (The Child – by his guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Residence Order) / Appeal From Luton County Court to Court of Appeal, Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial court’s order set aside; interim residence order to mother; further directions given.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Children Act 1989, Appeals, Welfare of the Child, Section 37 Reports, Section 91(14) Orders
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Children Act 1989 Appeals Welfare of the Child Section 37 Reports Section 91(14) Orders

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CP (The Mother)

Appellant

AR (The Father)

1st Respondent

CR (The Child – by his guardian)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Residence Order) / Appeal From Luton County Court to Court of Appeal, Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law or principle in making a residence order in favour of the paternal grandparents
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to give due weight to the importance of continuity of care, the role of biological parents, and sibling relationships
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider or properly weigh the expert evidence and the guardian’s late recommendation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s decision to make a residence order in favour of the paternal grandparents was wrong in law and principle. The judge failed to properly consider and weigh the importance of the child’s relationship with his mother and half-brother, the lack of independence and suitability of the grandparents, the absence of proper assessment, and the expert evidence. The judge gave undue weight to removing the child from parental conflict without sufficient justification for such a radical change. The appellate court was therefore duty-bound to set aside the order and substitute its own decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial court’s order set aside; interim residence order to mother; further directions given.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to the mother (except for medical treatment orders)
  • Appeal allowed; paragraphs of the trial judge’s order set aside