L (Children), Re

L (Children), Re

The judge was entitled to make an occupation order excluding the husband, given the significant harm to the children from parental conflict, and to specify the mother as primary carer based on her availability and the father's work commitments. The order was within the bounds of judicial discretion under section 33(6) of the Family Law Act 1996.

Parties
Appellant: Husband; Respondent: Wife
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupation Order, Shared Residence Order, Child Welfare, Discretion Under Family Law Act 1996
Family Law Occupation Order Shared Residence Order Child Welfare Discretion Under Family Law Act 1996

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

Parties

Husband

Appellant

Wife

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in making an occupation order excluding the husband from the matrimonial home
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in specifying that the children should live primarily with their mother

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to make an occupation order excluding the husband, given the significant harm to the children from parental conflict, and to specify the mother as primary carer based on her availability and the father's work commitments. The order was within the bounds of judicial discretion under section 33(6) of the Family Law Act 1996.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Occupation order excluding husband from matrimonial home until 27 June 2012 upheld
  • Shared residence order for twins, primarily with mother, upheld