M v M (Rev1) [2010] EWCA Civ 67 (10 February 2010)

M v M (Rev1) [2010] EWCA Civ 67 (10 February 2010)

The judge's findings that the father assaulted the mother and that the section 31 threshold was not crossed were supported by the evidence and within the judge's discretion. The applications to reopen fact-finding and to challenge the residence order failed as the new evidence did not undermine the core findings,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 67
Parties
Appellant: M; 1st Respondent: M; 2nd Respondent: South Gloucestershire Council; 3rd & 4th Respondent: M (Children) [BY THEIR GUARDIAN MW]
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Bristol County Court
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; orders of Judge Bromilow confirmed.
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Care Orders, Section 31 Threshold, Fact Finding, Expert Evidence, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Residence Orders Care Orders Section 31 Threshold Fact Finding Expert Evidence Appeals Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

M

1st Respondent

South Gloucestershire Council

2nd Respondent

M (Children) [BY THEIR GUARDIAN MW]

3rd & 4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Bristol County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father assaulted the mother or the injury was self-inflicted
  2. 2 Whether the section 31 Children Act 1989 threshold was crossed for a care order
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in granting residence to the mother

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings that the father assaulted the mother and that the section 31 threshold was not crossed were supported by the evidence and within the judge's discretion. The applications to reopen fact-finding and to challenge the residence order failed as the new evidence did not undermine the core findings, and the judge properly considered all relevant psychiatric and welfare evidence. The local authority's appeal on threshold was also dismissed as the judge's reasoning was sound and no error of law was shown.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; orders of Judge Bromilow confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals by father dismissed
  • Appeal by local authority dismissed