C (A Child)

C (A Child)

The trial judge misdirected himself in law by restricting the circumstances for shared residence orders and failed to properly consider or explain rejection of the CAFCASS officer's oral evidence supporting increased paternal involvement. The appellate court found the evidence supported both increased time with the father and a shared residence order as being in the child's best interests.

Parties
Appellant: Mr C; Respondent: Mrs C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Shared Residence Order, Child Arrangements, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Shared Residence Order Child Arrangements Parental Responsibility

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

Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment

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 declining to increase the father's time with the child during school terms

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected himself in law by restricting the circumstances for shared residence orders and failed to properly consider or explain rejection of the CAFCASS officer's oral evidence supporting increased paternal involvement. The appellate court found the evidence supported both increased time with the father and a shared residence order as being in the child's best interests.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • shared residence order made
  • variation of contact to increase father's time during school terms