Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
����������� This matter arises out of an appeal to the High Court from a decision made by the Family Care Centre at Belfast on 18 th December 2001 when it was ordered that the applicant P should not have any contact with the child C and that the child should not be informed of the identity of her natural father the applicant.� The respondent is S the mother of the child.�
����������� The grounds of appeal as set out in the notice of appeal by the appellant are as follows:
(a)������� the general welfare of the child under Article 1 of the Children Order (Northern Ireland) 1995 ("the 1995 Order");
(b)������ Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 which confers the right to respect for private and family life, potentially to be enjoyed by all family members.� The Convention Rights must be considered in private law proceedings under the Children Order by virtue of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.�� The so-called "horizontal effect" has been expressly acknowledged in this context by the Court of Appeal in Payne v Payne (2001) 1 FLR 1052 ;
I derive from these authorities the principle that it is only where there are cogent reasons relating to the welfare of the child that both indirect and direct contact should be refused or that the truth about her parentage should be denied.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.