R (A Child)

R (A Child)

The trial judge properly considered the welfare officer's recommendations, the impact of separation, the reliability of the father's assurances regarding contact, and the child's emotional motivation. There was no error in the judge's reasoning or exercise of discretion. Fresh evidence did not affect the outcome.

Parties
Applicant: R (A Child); Respondent: Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Order
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Child Welfare, Contact Orders, Appeals
Family Law Residence Orders Child Welfare Contact Orders Appeals

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (A Child)

Applicant

Defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting a residence order resulting in separation of siblings
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave inadequate consideration to the impact of separation
  3. 3 Whether the judge placed excessive weight on the views of an 11-year-old child

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly considered the welfare officer's recommendations, the impact of separation, the reliability of the father's assurances regarding contact, and the child's emotional motivation. There was no error in the judge's reasoning or exercise of discretion. Fresh evidence did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Stay of order refused