S (Children) , RE [2011] EWCA Civ 454 (18 April 2011)

S (Children) , RE [2011] EWCA Civ 454 (18 April 2011)

The trial judge erred by treating the children as a unit and failing to give separate and sufficient consideration to the individual welfare interests of C, the younger child. The judge subordinated C's welfare to B's wishes and did not properly apply the welfare checklist to C's circumstances. The evidence did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 454
Parties
Appellant: L. S. A.; Respondent: R. B. S.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (children Act Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Leave to Remove From Jurisdiction, Welfare of the Child, Sibling Separation, Appeal Against Residence Order
Family Law Child Relocation Leave to Remove From Jurisdiction Welfare of the Child Sibling Separation Appeal Against Residence Order

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. S. A.

Appellant

R. B. S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (children Act Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in treating the two children as a unit rather than considering their individual welfare needs
  2. 2 Whether the welfare of the younger child (C) was wrongly subordinated to the wishes of the older child (B)
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to carry out a full welfare checklist analysis for each child

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by treating the children as a unit and failing to give separate and sufficient consideration to the individual welfare interests of C, the younger child. The judge subordinated C's welfare to B's wishes and did not properly apply the welfare checklist to C's circumstances. The evidence did not support a change from the status quo for C, and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order permitting removal of C from the jurisdiction set aside
  • C to remain in the care of the mother