M (A Child)

M (A Child)

The appeals lacked substance as the judge below properly balanced the children's wishes against the protective needs arising from their history as victims of torture, and no procedural or substantive error was found.

Parties
Applicant: Mother; Respondent: Local Authority; Respondent: Father; Respondent: Child (Christopher); Respondent: Child (Ephraim) via Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Care Proceedings, Variation of Contact, Welfare of Children
Family Law Child Protection Contact Orders Care Proceedings Variation of Contact Welfare of Children

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Applicant

Local Authority

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Child (Christopher)

Respondent

Child (Ephraim) via Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to vary contact orders between parents and children was justified
  2. 2 Whether the wishes and feelings of the children should influence the decision
  3. 3 Whether procedural errors affected the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals lacked substance as the judge below properly balanced the children's wishes against the protective needs arising from their history as victims of torture, and no procedural or substantive error was found.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; original orders refusing contact variation upheld.