C, Re No Contact Order [2002] NIFam 14 (17 May 2002)
The judge properly exercised discretion, applied the welfare checklist, and balanced the child's welfare against parental rights, finding cogent reasons to refuse both direct and indirect contact and to suppress parentage information at this stage due to the applicant's behaviour and the child's vulnerability.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] NIFam 14
- Parties
- Applicant: P; Respondent: S; Child: C
- Jurisdiction
- Northern Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 17 May 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Family Care Centre Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Contact Orders, Representation of Children, Domestic Violence, Parental Rights, Welfare Checklist, European Convention on Human Rights
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
P
Applicant
S
Respondent
C
Child
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Family Care Centre Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing both direct and indirect contact between the applicant and the child
- 2 Whether the welfare checklist and paramountcy principle were properly applied
- 3 Whether suppression of the truth about parentage was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The judge properly exercised discretion, applied the welfare checklist, and balanced the child's welfare against parental rights, finding cogent reasons to refuse both direct and indirect contact and to suppress parentage information at this stage due to the applicant's behaviour and the child's vulnerability.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- No direct or indirect contact between applicant and child
- Child not to be informed of identity of natural father at this stage
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment