A (A Child)

A (A Child)

The appeal was allowed because the proceedings as a whole violated the procedural requirements of Article 8 ECHR, resulting in an unjust outcome due to systemic failure and serious procedural irregularity. The judge's analysis of the child's wishes and feelings was insufficient, and the process failed to afford timely and effective consideration to the family life rights of M and her father.

Parties
Applicant: Mr D; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: M (A child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 9th October 2012 set aside; case remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Residence Orders, Wishes and Feelings of Child, Procedural Fairness, Article 8 ECHR, Systemic Failure
Family Law Human Rights Child Contact Residence Orders Wishes and Feelings of Child Procedural Fairness Article 8 ECHR Systemic Failure

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr D

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

M (A child)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Justice System failed to afford paramount consideration to M's welfare and Article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether the judge's decision to refuse direct contact was unjust due to procedural irregularity
  3. 3 Appropriate weight to child's wishes and feelings in context of parental alienation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the proceedings as a whole violated the procedural requirements of Article 8 ECHR, resulting in an unjust outcome due to systemic failure and serious procedural irregularity. The judge's analysis of the child's wishes and feelings was insufficient, and the process failed to afford timely and effective consideration to the family life rights of M and her father.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 9th October 2012 set aside; case remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • Father's application for contact/residence to be reheard before a senior family judge (High Court or deputy High Court judge)
  • Relevant papers to be sent to President of the Family Division and Chairman of the Family Justice Board for systemic review