Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

RESIDENCE: CP v AR and CR [2009] EWCA Civ 358

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : cp-v-ar-and-cr-2009-ewca-civ-358
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 7, 2009, 07:25 AM
Article ID : 87401

(Court of Appeal; Wall and Wilson LJJ; 29 April 2009)

In the course of the 6-year dispute between the parents concerning the 8-year-old child it had become clear that the parents were implacably hostile to each other. The child was living with the mother, with contact to the father. The expert instructed by the guardian reported on the damaging impact of the ongoing conflict on the child, suggesting that the court seriously consider independent foster care for the child, to remove him from the conflict. However, the guardian's report proposed that the child live with the paternal grandparents, although the grandparents had not made any attempt to apply for a residence order themselves. At the hearing of cross applications by the parents for a residence order, the expert gave oral evidence that a placement with the paternal grandparents would work only if both parents agreed, otherwise it would not remove the child from the battle between them. The mother was strongly opposed to such a placement. It had been established that the local authority did not believe the threshold had been crossed, and was not prepared to get involved. The judge made a residence order in the grandparents' favour.

None of the professionals involved doubted that the dispute between the parents had caused serious emotional harm. However, the local authority could not be required to institute care proceedings, even if the court took the view that such proceedings were essential for the protection of a given child. The judge had been correct to say that there was no point in a s 37 report, as it would not result in the local authority taking action and enabling the judge to make an interim care order. Placing the child with independent foster carers was an option that was simply not open to the judge. However, the judge should not have made a residence order in favour of the grandparents. In doing so the judge had given insufficient weight to the importance of parental care and of the child's family life with his half-sibling, who also lived with the mother. There was also a fundamental flaw in the judge's reasoning, in that a placement in an environment that was recognised not to be independent could not achieve the stated aim of removing the child from the contest. The paternal grandparents had been and continued to be directly critical of the mother. Further, there had been insufficient preparation for this change of residence. The judge had also been wrong to overlook the expert's recommendation that further therapeutic work with the parents might assist. Further work with the parents should be undertaken. Like many separated parents these parents had made the damage to the children caused by the separation much worse by continuing their battles against each other in legal proceedings. They had already caused the child serious harm; if they were not capable of grasping this opportunity, they might well lose care of the child.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from