A (Children)

A (Children)

The judge was correct to refuse the application to replace the Guardian and to deny separate representation for R, as there was no conflict of interest and R lacked sufficient maturity to instruct separately; the Guardian's position was aligned with R's wishes as far as appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Leeds City Council; Subject Child: R (child); Subject Child: D (child); Children's Guardian: Anne Buckley (Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Public Law Children Proceedings / Appeal From Leeds County Court Decision on Application to Replace Guardian
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Children's Representation, Guardian Replacement, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Children's Representation Guardian Replacement Contact Arrangements

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds City Council

Applicant

R (child)

Subject Child

D (child)

Subject Child

Anne Buckley (Guardian)

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Public Law Children Proceedings / Appeal From Leeds County Court Decision on Application to Replace Guardian

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children's Guardian should be replaced due to alleged conflict with the child's wishes
  2. 2 Whether the child R should have separate legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to refuse the application to replace the Guardian and to deny separate representation for R, as there was no conflict of interest and R lacked sufficient maturity to instruct separately; the Guardian's position was aligned with R's wishes as far as appropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.