D v T

D v T

The judge was entitled to depart from the CAFCASS officer's recommendation, having provided cogent reasons and conducted a holistic analysis of the welfare checklist; the decision was within his discretion and in accordance with the law, and no grounds for appeal were established.

Parties
Appellant: D; Respondent: T
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Private Law Family Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Welfare Paramountcy, Appeals, Prohibited Steps Order, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Relocation Welfare Paramountcy Appeals Prohibited Steps Order Article 8 ECHR

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 9 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Appellant

T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Family Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in departing from CAFCASS recommendations
  2. 2 Whether the judge's factual analysis was wrong regarding physical and emotional needs, childcare plans, and impact
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider proportionality and Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to depart from the CAFCASS officer's recommendation, having provided cogent reasons and conducted a holistic analysis of the welfare checklist; the decision was within his discretion and in accordance with the law, and no grounds for appeal were established.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • stay continued for 7 days to allow appellant to seek oral hearing