M (Children)

M (Children)

The trial judge was plainly wrong in refusing further intervention and expert assessment; the children’s views were given undue weight despite evidence of alienation and lack of parental responsibility by the father. The welfare of the children required robust court action, including expert assessment and possible transfer to the High Court.

Parties
Applicant: M (Mother); Respondent: M (Father)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Southampton County Court (hhj Milligan)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Parental Alienation, Welfare of the Child, Reporting Restrictions
Family Law Children Law Contact Orders Parental Alienation Welfare of the Child Reporting Restrictions

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M (Mother)

Applicant

M (Father)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Southampton County Court (hhj Milligan)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing direct or meaningful indirect contact between the mother and children
  2. 2 Whether the case should be transferred to the High Court for further intervention
  3. 3 Whether expert psychiatric or psychological assessment should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was plainly wrong in refusing further intervention and expert assessment; the children’s views were given undue weight despite evidence of alienation and lack of parental responsibility by the father. The welfare of the children required robust court action, including expert assessment and possible transfer to the High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Expert to be appointed to report on prospects of future contact
  • Matter remitted to High Court for directions