H-W (Child), Re

H-W (Child), Re

The appellate court held that Judge Newton properly considered all relevant options, including the possibility of further expert evidence, and was entitled to rely on the CAFCASS officer's advice that further proceedings or expert involvement would not assist. The judge gave appropriate weight to the child's consistently expressed wishes and feelings, the impact of prolonged litigation, and the risk of emotional harm. There was no error in law or principle, and the decision was supported by the evidence.

Parties
Appellant: W's Father; Respondent: W's Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Manchester Family Court Decision of May 2016
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Welfare Principle, Expert Evidence, Appeals
Family Law Child Welfare Child Contact Welfare Principle Expert Evidence 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W's Father

Appellant

W's Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Manchester Family Court Decision of May 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing direct contact between the child and the father
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider expert evidence or alternative strategies for reintroducing contact
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider the child's long-term welfare

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court held that Judge Newton properly considered all relevant options, including the possibility of further expert evidence, and was entitled to rely on the CAFCASS officer's advice that further proceedings or expert involvement would not assist. The judge gave appropriate weight to the child's consistently expressed wishes and feelings, the impact of prolonged litigation, and the risk of emotional harm. There was no error in law or principle, and the decision was supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for direct contact between father and child
  • Indirect contact to continue as previously ordered