SL v JA & Anor

SL v JA & Anor

The lower court’s decision to order only supervised contact and impose a section 91(14) restriction on further applications regarding contact was flawed because it failed to adequately consider and balance the child’s strongly expressed wishes and feelings, the emotional harm of a highly restricted contact regime, and whether less restrictive alternatives were available. The judge also failed to distinguish between the appropriateness of a section 91(14) order for residence and for contact. The decision on contact and the related section 91(14) order cannot stand and must be reheard.

Parties
Appellant: SL; 1st Respondent: JA; 2nd Respondent: U (through their children’s guardian, Jo Whitnell)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders for supervised contact and section 91(14) restriction on contact set aside and remitted for rehearing; current supervised contact arrangements to continue pending rehearing.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Section 91(14) Orders 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SL

Appellant

JA

1st Respondent

U (through their children’s guardian, Jo Whitnell)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in ordering supervised contact only between the child and mother
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in making a section 91(14) order restricting further applications
  3. 3 Whether the child’s wishes and feelings were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The lower court’s decision to order only supervised contact and impose a section 91(14) restriction on further applications regarding contact was flawed because it failed to adequately consider and balance the child’s strongly expressed wishes and feelings, the emotional harm of a highly restricted contact regime, and whether less restrictive alternatives were available. The judge also failed to distinguish between the appropriateness of a section 91(14) order for residence and for contact. The decision on contact and the related section 91(14) order cannot stand and must be reheard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders for supervised contact and section 91(14) restriction on contact set aside and remitted for rehearing; current supervised contact arrangements to continue pending rehearing.

Orders

  • Mother’s appeal against supervised contact and section 91(14) order (as to contact) allowed
  • Issue of contact/spending time arrangements remitted for rehearing before a different judge