The local authority had obtained a care order so that it could inform the three children of the identity of their father’s first marriage, the mother and father being unwilling to make the disclosure. He had been convicted of relatively minor indecent assaults on two children in that first family, but in later therapy sessions within the current relationship, he had disclosed a rather more serious involvement.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘[T]his is a classic case of a careful balanced explanation from an experienced family division judge of why, out of the two alternatives presented, one by the local authority (now), the other by the mother (at some uncertain future date), he chose the proposal of the local authority over that of the mother. It is manifest that he correctly directed himself as to the law. It is manifest that he correctly directed himself as to his task. It is manifest that he correctly directed himself as to the essential choice. So, the only remaining argument for the appellant is that he has somehow failed to carry out the balancing exercise correctly, either by ignoring some relevant factor or by giving undue weight to another.’ No such error had been identified.
Thorpe, Longmore, Stanley Burnton LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1035
Bailii
Children Act 1989
England and Wales
Children
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.443579
