L (A Child)

L (A Child)

The appeal was allowed because the exclusion of the consultant psychiatrist's evidence meant the welfare decision was made on incomplete evidence, and further evaluation by Dr Ellis was necessary before confirming the order.

Parties
Appellant: Mother (Appellant); Respondent: Biological Father; Interested Party: Guardian; Subject: Child (D)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Welfare / Appeal From Bradford County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Paternity, Welfare of the Child, Expert Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Welfare Disclosure of Paternity Welfare of the Child Expert Evidence Appeal 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother (Appellant)

Appellant

Biological Father

Respondent

Guardian

Interested Party

Child (D)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Welfare / Appeal From Bradford County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child D should be informed of his true paternity at the beginning or end of the academic year
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the consultant psychiatrist's evidence rendered the welfare decision incomplete

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the exclusion of the consultant psychiatrist's evidence meant the welfare decision was made on incomplete evidence, and further evaluation by Dr Ellis was necessary before confirming the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Issue to be reconsidered by HHJ Cliffe in light of further opinion and advice from collaboration between Mr Parr and Dr Ellis.
  • Possible relisting for a brief hearing if necessary.