C (A Child)

C (A Child)

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to ensure the CAFCASS officer was available for cross-examination and did not ensure that all relevant evidence, particularly the emails, was properly considered. This constituted a gap in the evaluation of the child's wishes and feelings, and the matter must be...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Residence Order, Parental Responsibility, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Contact Residence Order Parental Responsibility Welfare of the Child

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in terminating contact between the child and the father
  2. 2 Whether all relevant evidence, including emails, was properly considered
  3. 3 Whether the CAFCASS officer's attendance and cross-examination was necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to ensure the CAFCASS officer was available for cross-examination and did not ensure that all relevant evidence, particularly the emails, was properly considered. This constituted a gap in the evaluation of the child's wishes and feelings, and the matter must be remitted for a further hearing.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to circuit judge for further hearing
  • Child to be joined as a party with a guardian and solicitor