B (A Child), Re [2009] EWCA Civ 545 (11 June 2009)

B (A Child), Re [2009] EWCA Civ 545 (11 June 2009)

The justices erred in law by treating the status quo as determinative and requiring 'compelling reasons' to remove the child from the grandmother's care, rather than properly weighing the respective roles of the parent and grandparent in the welfare equation. The judge was entitled to review and reverse their decision, and the Court of Appeal found no error in the judge's exercise of discretion in ordering residence with the father.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 545
Parties
Appellant: GB; 1st Respondent: RJB; 2nd Respondent: GLB; Subject: B (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children (residence Dispute) / Second Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Welfare Principle, Parental Responsibility, Grandparent Rights, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Welfare Principle Parental Responsibility Grandparent Rights Appeals Procedure

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GB

Appellant

RJB

1st Respondent

GLB

2nd Respondent

B (A Child)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children (residence Dispute) / Second Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was correct to reverse the justices' decision granting residence to the grandmother and instead order residence with the father
  2. 2 Whether the justices erred in law by requiring 'compelling reasons' to remove the child from the grandmother's care
  3. 3 The correct application of the welfare principle under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 in disputes between parents and grandparents

Ratio Decidendi

The justices erred in law by treating the status quo as determinative and requiring 'compelling reasons' to remove the child from the grandmother's care, rather than properly weighing the respective roles of the parent and grandparent in the welfare equation. The judge was entitled to review and reverse their decision, and the Court of Appeal found no error in the judge's exercise of discretion in ordering residence with the father.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Substantive appeal dismissed