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 judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
The Judge had a busy list with 7 cases for him to consider. These were all or mostly first hearing dispute resolution hearings (FHDRAs). Heavy lists of cases requiring the judge to try and resolve the dispute in each case place enormous pressure on first instance judges, who must allocate limited time between those cases and yet deal with them all justly. This case was one such. It was a first hearing. The case started at 12.15 pm and ended at 12.35 pm with a final order. On any view, that was a rapid resolution of a case with a complex background and some potentially difficult issues.
The Judge should first have been applying the criteria in section 10 (9). However, as he was no longer dealing with the leave application (having determined that leave was not required) he applied the section 1(3) welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989.
The Judge began consideration of the welfare checklist with the child�s wishes and feelings. Mr Denman, in his excellent and valiant submissions, makes the point that the Judge cannot be said to have given greater weight to that factor merely because he spent much time on it. However, it is plain from the transcript of both the Judgment and the discussion that preceded it, that he regarded S�s wishes and feelings as determinative of the application. That is apparent from the following quotations:
�I have discussed with him [G] what I am supposed to do in circumstances where S has told the social worker that she does not wish to see him. Was I going to order that she saw him effectively forcing her to see him when she had said no? He did not have an answer to that question.�
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.