H-B (Contact), Re

H-B (Contact), Re

The appeal is dismissed. The judge did not err in law or principle. All reasonable steps to promote contact were taken, including therapy, expert involvement, and mediation. The children's opposition to contact is entrenched and no further practical steps were available. The section 91(14) order was justified to protect the children from further litigation. Responsibility for the situation lies with both parents, not the court.

Parties
Appellant: Father; 1st Respondent: Mother; 2nd Respondent: J (child); 3rd Respondent: K (child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Orders of HHJ Wildblood Qc, Bristol County Court, to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Children Law Contact Orders Section 91(14) Orders Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

1st Respondent

J (child)

2nd Respondent

K (child)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Orders of HHJ Wildblood Qc, Bristol County Court, to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing direct contact between the father and the children
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to ensure the children were informed of findings exonerating the father from sexual abuse allegations
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have ordered further expert involvement or taken additional steps to promote contact

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. The judge did not err in law or principle. All reasonable steps to promote contact were taken, including therapy, expert involvement, and mediation. The children's opposition to contact is entrenched and no further practical steps were available. The section 91(14) order was justified to protect the children from further litigation. Responsibility for the situation lies with both parents, not the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No direct contact between father and children ordered
  • Indirect contact (cards/letters) permitted every two months