A (Children)

A (Children)

There was abundant material before the trial judge to support her findings of fact regarding neglect and emotional harm; expert evidence on the child's credibility was not required; procedural irregularities did not vitiate the findings; and the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were properly satisfied. The applications for permission to appeal had no prospect of success.

Parties
First Appellant: Mr A; Second Appellant: Mrs A; Respondent: Leeds Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Threshold Criteria, Findings of Fact, Expert Evidence, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Threshold Criteria Findings of Fact Expert Evidence 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr A

First Appellant

Mrs A

Second Appellant

Leeds Local Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making findings of fact without expert evidence regarding a child's video interview
  2. 2 Whether the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were properly satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the parents had a fair trial and opportunity to present their case

Ratio Decidendi

There was abundant material before the trial judge to support her findings of fact regarding neglect and emotional harm; expert evidence on the child's credibility was not required; procedural irregularities did not vitiate the findings; and the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were properly satisfied. The applications for permission to appeal had no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal refused for both appellants.
  • Any assessment of Mrs A's costs to be subject to compliance with Practice Directions.