W (Children), Re

W (Children), Re

The judge was entitled to refuse contact based on the age and clearly expressed wishes of the children, the standing findings of risk from previous proceedings, and the lack of evidence that the CAFCASS officer's report or the judge's process was materially flawed. There was no arguable ground of appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Mr W; Respondent: Mrs B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (contact Order)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Children's Wishes, Judicial Discretion, Issue Estoppel, Risk Assessment
Family Law Child Law Contact Orders Children's Wishes Judicial Discretion Issue Estoppel Risk Assessment

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr W

Appellant

Mrs B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (contact Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing contact between father and twins
  2. 2 Whether findings from previous care proceedings could be relied upon in contact proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the CAFCASS officer's report was accurate and unbiased

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse contact based on the age and clearly expressed wishes of the children, the standing findings of risk from previous proceedings, and the lack of evidence that the CAFCASS officer's report or the judge's process was materially flawed. There was no arguable ground of appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused