Housing Law WeekFamily Law WeekFamily Law WeekAlphabiolabsBerkeley Lifford Hall Accountancy Services

Re D [2005] EWCA Civ 1132

Comment by Tacey Cronin of Albion Chambers

Re D [2005] EWCA Civ 1132

In dismissing this appeal, Wall LJ reinforces the principle that it is for the Judge to whom the discretion is granted to make or refuse an order to assess the plans presented and make the welfare decision and that the Court of Appeal will not interfere where his decision can be seen to be within the broad band of reasonable outcomes. He refers to the truism that in family law the more finely balanced a decision the more difficult it is to say that it is wrong. There was a long history to this case and the crucial question must have been why was it suddenly urgent to remove a child of 9 from her home where she had been the subject of concern for 18 months. There could be no issue over the threshold criteria on the interim basis. The Judge made specific findings on the evidence before him as to recent events which satisfied him that the child should be removed from her home.

Some practitioners will be amused by the comments at paragraph 8 about the concise and coherent arguments presented, given the Judge's experience of the Northern Circuit!!

Read the full text of the judgment here