G (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1434 (07 November 2012)

G (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1434 (07 November 2012)

The judge's decision to vary the shared residence order and terminate contact was procedurally unfair and premature, as there was no application for variation, no notice to the affected party, and insufficient consideration of expert advice or the possibility of restoring contact. The appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for retrial with directions for expert re-engagement.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1434
Parties
Appellant: CW; 1st Respondent: CG; 2nd Respondent: Children's Guardian (Mr Barr)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Truro County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside; case remitted for retrial with directions.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibility, Procedural Fairness, Children's Welfare, Role of Guardian Ad Litem
Family Law Residence Orders Contact Orders Parental Responsibility Procedural Fairness Children's Welfare Role of Guardian Ad Litem

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CW

Appellant

CG

1st Respondent

Children's Guardian (Mr Barr)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Truro County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in substituting a sole residence order for a shared residence order, thereby depriving CW of parental responsibility
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to terminate direct contact and not pursue further efforts for contact
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was observed in varying the residence order without application or notice

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to vary the shared residence order and terminate contact was procedurally unfair and premature, as there was no application for variation, no notice to the affected party, and insufficient consideration of expert advice or the possibility of restoring contact. The appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for retrial with directions for expert re-engagement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside; case remitted for retrial with directions.

Orders

  • Set aside paragraph 1 of the judge's order.
  • Remit the application for retrial by Baker J.