C (Children)

C (Children)

The judge's order for disclosure to the guardian alone was a proper exercise of discretion, proportionate, and not a plain error; the balancing of privacy and the need to investigate the welfare of the children was correctly conducted.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Appeal From Bow County Court; Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Communications, Prohibited Steps Orders, Children's Welfare, Article 8 ECHR, Role of Guardian Ad Litem
Family Law Children Law Human Rights Disclosure of Communications Prohibited Steps Orders Children's Welfare Article 8 ECHR Role of Guardian Ad Litem

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Appeal From Bow County Court; Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for disclosure of communications between the father and elected representatives was a disproportionate invasion of privacy
  2. 2 Whether the judge exercised her discretion correctly in ordering disclosure to the guardian
  3. 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR rights were breached

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's order for disclosure to the guardian alone was a proper exercise of discretion, proportionate, and not a plain error; the balancing of privacy and the need to investigate the welfare of the children was correctly conducted.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Father to disclose all letters and e-mails sent between himself and Stephen Timms MP and the local councillor to the guardian's solicitor by 29 January
  • No order for disclosure against Mr Timms or of his correspondence