H (A Child)

H (A Child)

The judge was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the risks were not of sufficient gravity to require supervised contact and that unsupervised contact was in the child's best interests. The judge properly considered the Practice Direction and the possibility of adjournment, and his decision was within the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Guardian; Respondent: Father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Supervised Contact, Unsupervised Contact, Interim Orders, Risk of Harm, Practice Direction Compliance
Family Law Child Law Child Contact Supervised Contact Unsupervised Contact Interim Orders Risk of Harm Practice Direction Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Guardian

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting unsupervised contact to the father
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider the Practice Direction regarding minimising risk to the child
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have adjourned to investigate further supervision options

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the risks were not of sufficient gravity to require supervised contact and that unsupervised contact was in the child's best interests. The judge properly considered the Practice Direction and the possibility of adjournment, and his decision was within the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Unsupervised contact between father and child to continue as ordered by the trial judge