M (Children)

M (Children)

The trial judge failed to adequately consider whether supervised contact could be safely implemented and did not provide sufficient reasoning for rejecting all forms of contact, including supervised contact, contrary to the expert evidence. The order refusing all contact was not shown to be proportionate under Article 8 ECHR. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for rehearing with a focus on the availability and adequacy of supervised contact arrangements.

Parties
Applicant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Contact Order; Permission to Appeal Granted on Limited Ground; Appeal Allowed and Remitted for Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order refusing contact set aside; case remitted for rehearing before trial judge.
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Domestic Violence, Supervised Contact, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Child Contact Domestic Violence Supervised Contact Article 8 ECHR Proportionality +1 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Contact Order; Permission to Appeal Granted on Limited Ground; Appeal Allowed and Remitted for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge properly considered the possibility of supervised contact between father and children
  2. 2 Whether the order refusing all contact was proportionate and justified under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to adequately consider whether supervised contact could be safely implemented and did not provide sufficient reasoning for rejecting all forms of contact, including supervised contact, contrary to the expert evidence. The order refusing all contact was not shown to be proportionate under Article 8 ECHR. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for rehearing with a focus on the availability and adequacy of supervised contact arrangements.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order refusing contact set aside; case remitted for rehearing before trial judge.

Orders

  • Set aside order dated 17 May 2013 refusing contact.
  • Remit case to Her Honour Judge Cushing for rehearing on supervised contact resources and arrangements.