J (A Child)

J (A Child)

The trial judge applied the correct legal principles, considered the welfare of the child as paramount, weighed the evidence including the flawed section 7 report, and was entitled to maintain the status quo and impose a section 91(14) order; no error of law or discretion was found.

Parties
Appellant: Mr HCJ; Respondent: Mrs J
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Residence and Contact / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Child Residence, Contact Orders, Section 7 Report, Section 91(14) Order, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Residence Contact Orders Section 7 Report Section 91(14) Order Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr HCJ

Appellant

Mrs J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Residence and Contact / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the father's application for residence of the child
  2. 2 Whether the investigation into the child's wishes and feelings was defective
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in making a section 91(14) order preventing further applications for three years

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge applied the correct legal principles, considered the welfare of the child as paramount, weighed the evidence including the flawed section 7 report, and was entitled to maintain the status quo and impose a section 91(14) order; no error of law or discretion was found.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Judgment to be transcribed at public expense for the appellant's use in any future application