LTF v LMF

LTF v LMF

Permission to appeal is refused because there is no arguable case that the mother has failed to comply with the indirect contact order or that the circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify lifting the section 91(14) bar before its expiry. The children’s welfare continues to require the breathing space provided by the order, and the evidence does not support the father’s allegations of improper influence or non-compliance by the mother.

Parties
Appellant: LTF; Respondent: LMF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Indirect Contact, Leave to Apply, Appointment of Guardian
Family Law Children Law Contact Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Indirect Contact Leave to Apply Appointment of Guardian

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LTF

Appellant

LMF

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father should be granted permission to appeal against the refusal to allow him to apply for implementation of an order for indirect contact during the currency of a section 91(14) order
  2. 2 Whether the mother has failed to comply with the indirect contact order
  3. 3 Whether the children’s guardian should be replaced by NYAS

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because there is no arguable case that the mother has failed to comply with the indirect contact order or that the circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify lifting the section 91(14) bar before its expiry. The children’s welfare continues to require the breathing space provided by the order, and the evidence does not support the father’s allegations of improper influence or non-compliance by the mother.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Reporting restrictions imposed forbidding identification of parties and children
  • No permission to appeal against Judge Ryland’s order