K (Children)

K (Children)

The judge's welfare evaluation and orders were not wrong or disproportionate; the section 91(14) order and reservation to Judge Bellamy were proper risk reduction measures within judicial discretion; exclusion of extended paternal family from contact is not reasoned and remains for future determination.

Parties
Appellant: Father; First Respondent: Mother; Second and Third Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Residence Order, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Case Management, Judicial Continuity
Family Law Child Contact Residence Order Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Case Management Judicial Continuity

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Children's Guardian

Second and Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the judge erred in balancing risk of dangerousness and children's need for contact
  2. 2 appropriateness and length of section 91(14) order
  3. 3 reservation of case to Judge Bellamy

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's welfare evaluation and orders were not wrong or disproportionate; the section 91(14) order and reservation to Judge Bellamy were proper risk reduction measures within judicial discretion; exclusion of extended paternal family from contact is not reasoned and remains for future determination.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • refusal of permission for case management appeals
  • dismissal of substantive appeal