B (Child Evidence), Re
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LORD JUSTICE FULFORD
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a father's appeal against a court order allowing a Family Court Adviser to determine whether the older child should give evidence about alleged violence in a family dispute. The appeal was dismissed. The court cited relevant principles from Re W, affirming that while the child's welfare is a consideration, it is not paramount, and a careful balancing of the benefits and potential harm is required. Judges concurred with the decision.
Judgment
Lady Justice Black :
In order to avoid further delay for the children involved in these proceedings, at the end of the hearing of this appeal, we immediately announced our decision to dismiss it for reasons which would follow in writing. These are those reasons.
On 12 February 2014, Her Honour Judge Cameron gave directions in a case concerning a 5 year old boy, C. The proceedings were private law proceedings brought by C's father (F) with the objective of obtaining an order for contact with C who he has not seen since the end of 2011.
In response to F's application for contact, C's mother (M) asserted that F had been violent to her during their relationship. Her allegations, which F denied, were considered material to the issue of contact and it was directed that there was to be a fact finding hearing. M wanted her older child (a daughter, G, who was born in January 2001 so is now 13 years old) to give evidence at the fact finding hearing about some of the violent incidents, those in question having occurred during 2011, and her application to this end was considered by Judge Cameron on 12 February 2014. She ordered the involvement of a Family Court Adviser from CAFCASS ("the Adviser") who was to see G to explore matters further. It is against this that F appeals to this court, with permission of the judge herself.
The order that Judge Cameron made is detailed. The preamble set out that "before determining the issue of whether G should answer questions or whether G should give evidence it is necessary for the Court to obtain a report from a Family Court Adviser on the issues set out below". In the body of the order it was provided that the officer was to "meet G on probably 2 occasions" and then to provide "a section 7 report in accordance with the decision in Re W [2010] UKSC 12 and the Working Party of the Family Justice Council Guidelines December 2011 [2012] Fam Law 79 to assist the court as to whether (and if so how) G should answer questions put in writing and/or to give evidence at the fact finding by videolink".
In fact, the "consequential provisions" of the order which followed entrusted rather more discretion to the Adviser than these general passages imply and envisaged that she may actually proceed to put questions to G. The parties were directed to agree and provide to the Adviser "a list of proposed questions ….that they would seek to be put to G". The officer was then to meet G in a neutral venue and it was:
"left to the