B (A Child), Re

B (A Child), Re

The justices erred in law by treating the status quo as determinative and requiring compelling reasons to change the child’s residence from the grandmother to the father, rather than properly applying the welfare principle and considering the role of the natural parent. The judge was entitled to review and reverse their decision, and his conclusion that the child’s welfare was best served by living with his father was not plainly wrong.

Parties
Appellant: GB; 1st Respondent: RJB; 2nd Respondent: GLB; Subject Child: B (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (children's Case) / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Parental Responsibility, Grandparent Rights, Welfare Principle, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Welfare Residence Orders Parental Responsibility Grandparent Rights Welfare Principle 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GB

Appellant

RJB

1st Respondent

GLB

2nd Respondent

B (A Child)

Subject Child

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (children's Case) / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was right to reverse the justices’ decision on residence of the child
  2. 2 The correct application of the welfare principle under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 in disputes between parents and grandparents
  3. 3 The threshold for second appeals in children’s cases

Ratio Decidendi

The justices erred in law by treating the status quo as determinative and requiring compelling reasons to change the child’s residence from the grandmother to the father, rather than properly applying the welfare principle and considering the role of the natural parent. The judge was entitled to review and reverse their decision, and his conclusion that the child’s welfare was best served by living with his father was not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted but substantive appeal dismissed
  • Ancillary orders made to give effect to the decision