In the matter of M (Children)

In the matter of M (Children)

The appeal is allowed because the judge failed to properly apply the paramountcy principle, did not sufficiently challenge discriminatory practices, prematurely refused direct contact without exhausting alternatives, and inadequately addressed human rights and equality law issues. The matter is remitted for reconsideration with explicit directions to scrutinize discrimination and the feasibility of direct contact.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother; Interested Party: Children's Guardian; Intervener: Stonewall Equality Limited; Intervener: Keshet Diversity UK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Welfare, Contact Orders, Religious Freedom, Discrimination, Transgender Rights, Paramountcy Principle, Equality Act 2010, European Convention on Human Rights
Family Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Child Welfare Contact Orders Religious Freedom Discrimination Transgender Rights +3 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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Children's Guardian

Interested Party

Stonewall Equality Limited

Intervener

Keshet Diversity UK

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge lost sight of the paramountcy principle in denying direct contact between transgender parent and children
  2. 2 Whether indirect contact and staged narratives were properly evaluated as in the children's best interests
  3. 3 Whether the court exhausted its powers to attempt to make direct contact work

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the judge failed to properly apply the paramountcy principle, did not sufficiently challenge discriminatory practices, prematurely refused direct contact without exhausting alternatives, and inadequately addressed human rights and equality law issues. The matter is remitted for reconsideration with explicit directions to scrutinize discrimination and the feasibility of direct contact.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the family court for reconsideration before Hayden J
  • Scope of rehearing to be determined by the judge; explicit directions to consider discrimination and feasibility of direct contact