PP v JP & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1697 (Fam)
Child A and B, Re
11 October 2024
[2024] EWFC 284 (B)
Family Court
A mom and dad disagreed on which high school their 11-year-old twins should attend. A report recommended one school, but a judge chose the other. A higher court ruled the judge didn't explain their decision well enough and sent the case back to be decided again properly, emphasizing the importance of listening to experts and considering all factors when deciding what's best for children.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a Family Court order determining which secondary school two children (Child A and Child B, aged 11) should attend: a Welsh school or an English school.
- •Mother (Appellant) appealed the Lay Justices' decision in favour of the Welsh school.
- •The case was handled under the Pathfinder pilot scheme in South East Wales, focusing on child-centred approach and upfront investigation.
- •A Child Impact Report (CIR) recommended the English school, aligning with Child A's preference; the Justices opted for the Welsh school, aligning with Child B's preference and existing social network.
- •The appeal concerned procedural irregularities and errors in the Lay Justices' decision-making process.
- •The appeal also addressed whether the Justices correctly applied the welfare checklist and considered the parties' Article 8 rights.
Legal Principles
An appeal can be allowed if the lower court's decision was wrong or there was a procedural irregularity making the decision unjust.
FPR 30.12(30)
Appellate courts should consider whether the lower court's judgment is sustainable, reading the judgment as a whole.
Re F (Children) [2016] EWCA 546
Appellate courts should resist substituting their discretion for the lower court's, unless there's clear misdirection.
Piglowska v Piglowska [1999] 1 WLR 1360
Judges should generally follow Cafcass recommendations, departing only with strong reasons and testing those misgivings with the officer if necessary.
Re R (A Child) 2009 EWCA Civ 445, Re A (Children: 1959 UN Declaration) 1998 1 FLR 354
A judge departing from a s7 report recommendation must give clear reasons for doing so.
Re J (Children) Residence: expert evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 44 CA
The welfare checklist under s1(3) of the Children Act 1989 doesn't need slavish adherence, but the reasons must show how each relevant part was considered.
Relevant sections of the judgment
In Pathfinder cases, the court should actively engage in judge-led conciliation to facilitate agreement before resorting to a decision.
FPR 2010 Rule 1.4(g)
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Lay Justices' decision was found to be procedurally irregular and based on inadequate reasoning. They failed to adequately analyze the CIR's shortcomings, did not provide their own analysis, failed to address the welfare checklist comprehensively, and failed to engage in judge-led conciliation.