P (A Child)

P (A Child)

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence before the judge established a need to limit contact due to the father's behaviour and its emotional impact on the child. The process by which contact was reduced was flawed, but the outcome was justified. The s 91(14) embargo was proportionate given the father's pattern of litigation and its adverse impact on the child and carers. The refusal to discharge the care order was correct as there was no evidence it would be in the child's best interests.

Parties
Subject Child: P (A child); Appellant: Father; First Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council; Second Respondent: Mother; Third Respondents: Maternal Grandparents; Fourth Respondent: Child (by Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Care and Contact / Appeal From Chester Family Court Decision on Discharge of Care Order, Contact, and S 91(14) Embargo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Contact With Children, Personality Disorders and Parenting, Section 91(14) Orders, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Contact With Children Personality Disorders and Parenting Section 91(14) Orders Appeals Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P (A child)

Subject Child

Father

Appellant

Cheshire West and Chester Council

First Respondent

Mother

Second Respondent

Maternal Grandparents

Third Respondents

Child (by Guardian)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Care and Contact / Appeal From Chester Family Court Decision on Discharge of Care Order, Contact, and S 91(14) Embargo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reduction of contact between father and child was justified
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to discharge the care order was justified
  3. 3 Whether the imposition of a s 91(14) embargo was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence before the judge established a need to limit contact due to the father's behaviour and its emotional impact on the child. The process by which contact was reduced was flawed, but the outcome was justified. The s 91(14) embargo was proportionate given the father's pattern of litigation and its adverse impact on the child and carers. The refusal to discharge the care order was correct as there was no evidence it would be in the child's best interests.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Contact to remain at four times per year, subject to conditions under s 34(7) Children Act 1989
  • Section 91(14) embargo on further applications by the father for five years