W (Children)

W (Children)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to make the findings of sexual misconduct against the applicant based on the evidence, including video interviews and transcripts, and that the judge's reasoning, though brief regarding the applicant's evidence, was sufficient in context. The application for permission to appeal had no arguable foundation and was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Grandfather; First Respondent: Neath and Port Talbot County Council; Second Respondent: Mother; Third Respondent: Father of A and C; Fourth and Fifth Respondents: A and C (children, by their Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (care Proceedings) / Application for Permission to Appeal (fact Finding Stage)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Standard of Proof, Evidentiary Assessment
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Sexual Abuse Allegations Standard of Proof Evidentiary Assessment

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

Grandfather

Applicant

Neath and Port Talbot County Council

First Respondent

Mother

Second Respondent

Father of A and C

Third Respondent

A and C (children, by their Guardian)

Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (care Proceedings) / Application for Permission to Appeal (fact Finding Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making findings of sexual misconduct against the applicant on the evidence adduced
  2. 2 Whether the judge's reasoning and treatment of the applicant's evidence was sufficient and fair
  3. 3 Whether the findings were justified given the applicant's inability to cross-examine certain child witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to make the findings of sexual misconduct against the applicant based on the evidence, including video interviews and transcripts, and that the judge's reasoning, though brief regarding the applicant's evidence, was sufficient in context. The application for permission to appeal had no arguable foundation and was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused