A (A Child), Re

Given the expert evidence, the history of parental conflict, mother's mental health, and M's own expressed wishes, there is no realistic prospect of direct contact developing successfully. An order for direct contact would perpetuate conflict and harm M's welfare. Only indirect contact is consistent with M's welfare and is a necessary and proportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

Parties: Applicant: Father; First Respondent: Mother; Subject Child: M (A Child); Guardian: Children's Guardian (CAFCASS)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 13 June 2014
Procedural Posture: Children Act Proceedings / Final Judgment After Rehearing
Outcome: Application for direct contact refused; order for indirect contact only granted.
Legal Topics: Child Contact, Residence, Article 8 ECHR, Parental Responsibility, Personality Disorder, Indirect Contact, Court Enforcement, Expert Evidence

Family Law Child Welfare Human Rights Child Contact Residence Article 8 ECHR Parental Responsibility Personality Disorder +3 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

M (A Child)

Subject Child

Children's Guardian (CAFCASS)

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings / Final Judgment After Rehearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether direct contact between father and child should be ordered
2 Whether indirect contact is sufficient to protect child's welfare
3 Impact of parental conflict and mother's mental health on child's wishes

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for direct contact refused; order for indirect contact only granted.

Orders

Order for indirect contact between father and M
No order for direct contact