A (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104 (06 September 2013)

A (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104 (06 September 2013)

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge's decision to make a no direct contact order was not 'plainly wrong' and fell within the range of reasonable responses to the evidence, particularly given the child's age, wishes, and the lack of agency support for a change of residence. However, the proceedings as a whole violated the procedural requirements of Article 8 ECHR due to systemic delay and failure, resulting in a breach of the family life rights of the father and child.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1104
Parties
Applicant: Mr D; First Respondent: Mother (name withheld); Second Respondent: M (A child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Contact and Residence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Final Order of Sheffield District Registry
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Residence Orders, Welfare of the Child, Article 8 ECHR, Systemic Failure, Delay in Proceedings
Family Law Human Rights Child Contact Residence Orders Welfare of the Child Article 8 ECHR Systemic Failure Delay in Proceedings

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr D

Applicant

Mother (name withheld)

First Respondent

M (A child)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Contact and Residence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Final Order of Sheffield District Registry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a no direct contact order between father and child
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings violated Article 8 ECHR rights due to systemic failure and delay
  3. 3 Whether the child's wishes and feelings were given appropriate weight

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge's decision to make a no direct contact order was not 'plainly wrong' and fell within the range of reasonable responses to the evidence, particularly given the child's age, wishes, and the lack of agency support for a change of residence. However, the proceedings as a whole violated the procedural requirements of Article 8 ECHR due to systemic delay and failure, resulting in a breach of the family life rights of the father and child.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No direct contact order between father and child upheld
  • Child to reside with mother