C (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 235 (18 January 2006)

C (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 235 (18 January 2006)

The trial judge erred in law by restricting the circumstances in which a shared residence order could be made and by failing to properly consider and explain the rejection of expert oral evidence supporting increased paternal involvement. The appellate court exercised its own discretion, finding that the circumstances strongly supported a shared residence order and increased time with the father, as this was in the child's best interests and reflected the reality of his life.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 235
Parties
Appellant: Mr C; Respondent: Mrs C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (contact and Residence) / Appeal From Bradford County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Shared Residence Orders, Contact Arrangements, Parental Responsibility, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Shared Residence Orders Contact Arrangements Parental Responsibility Best Interests of the Child

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr C

Appellant

Mrs C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (contact and Residence) / Appeal From Bradford County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law in refusing a shared residence order
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to increase the father's time with the child during school term

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by restricting the circumstances in which a shared residence order could be made and by failing to properly consider and explain the rejection of expert oral evidence supporting increased paternal involvement. The appellate court exercised its own discretion, finding that the circumstances strongly supported a shared residence order and increased time with the father, as this was in the child's best interests and reflected the reality of his life.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Shared residence order made in favour of both parents
  • Father's time with the child during school term increased as proposed