No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Child Custody Appeals: The Search for Principle
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
The vagueness and uncertainty of application of the principles used to determine child custody appeals continue to cause great problems for the legal practitioner who must advise a client aggrieved by a decision at first instance. Child custody is an area where the right of appeal is unrestricted, but appeal court judges have nonetheless shown a marked tendency towards self-restraint in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction. Two principal reasons are commonly given for this: first, the trial court in a child custody dispute often has a special advantage not possessed by the appeal court, in that it has seen and heard the witnesses; secondly, and more generally, the determination of a child custody dispute involves an exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court, in which the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. For these reasons, which are considered in detail in the following section, it is perceived to be necessary to allow trial courts a degree of latitude. However, although the necessity for appellate self-restraint is generally accepted, there has been and continues to be wide disagreement as to the form which that self-restraint should take. In addition, there are many reported cases in which an appeal court has acknowledged the need for self-restraint, only to succumb to the temptation to intervene on the facts before it. The result of the absence of a principled justification for intervention is that there is no rational basis upon which parties can assess the strengths of their respective positions.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1987
References
We wish to acknowledge our gratitude to Mr. John Hall of St. John's College, Cambridge, and to Dr. David Pearl of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, for their comments upon an earlier draft. Responsibility for any remaining errors rests entirely with the authors.
1 These reasons have been treated as cumulative: see, e.g., Re T. (A Minor: Wardship), T. v. T. (Ouster Order) [1987] F.L.R. 181; T. v. T. (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1987] F.L.R. 374.
2 The “welfare principle”: cf. Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (c.3), s.l; J. v. C. [1970] A.C. 668.
3 See Maidment, S., “Appeals in Custody Cases: The Proper Limits” (1983) N.L.J. 1032Google Scholar.
4 [1985] 1 W.L.R. 647.
5 Cf. note on Re G. (A Minor) [1987] Fam. Law 52.
6 See Practice Note (Minors: Listing of Appeals) [1984] 3 All E.R. 58 (counsel's unavailability is not a reason for delay; appeals should normally be heard within twenty-eight days of the hearing at first instance); Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, The Times, 13 June 1986 (appeals should be heard within three months of first instance hearing).
7 Re G. (A Minor), supra, note 5; Re T. (A Minor) [1986] Fam. Law 189.
8 Supra, note 5.
9 Cf. Legal Aid Act 1974 (c.4), s.9(6); Hanlon v. Law Society [1981] A.C. 124 (costs of custody dispute may be charged in favour of The Law Society against the value of matrimonial assets realised in the same proceedings).
10 Re F. (A Minor) (Wardship: Appeal) [1976] Fam. 238 at 250–251 per Stamp L. J.; Re T. (A Minor: Wardship), T. v. T. (Ouster Order), supra, note 1; T. v. T. (Minors: Custody Appeal), supra, note 1.
11 Cf. Re B. (An Infant) [1962] 1 W.L.R. 550, at 555 per Donovan L.J., quoted with approval by Browne L.J. in Re F. (A Minor) (Wardship: Appeal), supra, note 10, at 207; contra ibid., at 198 per Stamp L.J.
12 [1984] Fam. Law 112.
13 [1984] Fam. 100.
14 Ibid., at 103.
15 [1986] Fam. Law 105; and see Williams v. Williams (1981) Fam. Law 23.
16 R. v. Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex p. International Sporting Club (London) Ltd. [1982] Q.B. 304, at 314, 315; Capital and Suburban Properties Ltd. v. Swycher [1976] Ch. 319, at 325, 326 per Buckley, L.J.Google Scholar
17 Hoey v. Hoey [1984] 1 All E.R. 177, at 178 per Cumming-Bruce, L.J.Google Scholar
18 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43), s.74; Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981 (S.I. 1981 No. 552), s.36.
19 Hutchinson v. Hutchinson (1981) F.L.R. 167, at 172 per SirP., John ArnoldGoogle Scholar; and see Re M. (A Minor) (1981) Fam. Law 58.
20 (1983) Fam. Law 174; see also Re T. (A Minor) (Welfare Report Recommendation) (1980) F.L.R. 59; Stephenson v. Stephenson [1985] F.L.R. 1140, at 1146 per J., WoodGoogle Scholar
21 Supra, note 20.
22 G. v. G., supra, note 4, at 651 per Lord Fraser.
23 See, e.g., R. v. G., supra, note 13.
24 See, e.g., Re D.W. (A Minor) (Custody) [1984] Fam. Law 17.
25 G. v. G., supra, note 4, at 651 per Lord Fraser; May v. May [1986] Fam. Law 105, at 106 per Ackner, L.J.Google Scholar
26 G. v. G., supra, note 4, at 651 per Lord Fraser.
27 For full discussion see Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law, 5th ed. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982), ch. 12Google Scholar.
28 [1948] 1 K.B. 223.
29 Cp. Maidment, op. cit., note 3 (“wrong in principle” approach).
30 [1976] Fam. 238, at 253, and see Clode v. Clode (1982) F.L.R. 360, at 363 per SirP., John ArnoldGoogle Scholar
31 Op. cit., note 3.
32 [1971] Ch. 748, at 755.
33 (1983) F.L.R. 247.
34 Ibid., at 259.
35 Supra, note 4, at 653.
36 Cf. Dicocco v. Milne, supra, note 33, at 259.
37 Supra, note 4, at 652, quoting Scarman, Lord in B. v. W. (Wardship: Appeal) [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1041, at 1055Google Scholar.
38 Ibid., at 652, quoting Asquith, L.J. in Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v. Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All E.R. 343, at 345Google Scholar.
39 Cf. Instrumatic Ltd. v. Supabrase Ltd. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 519, at 521per Lord, Denning M.R.Google Scholar (“plainly wrong” exercise of discretion by tribunal would amount to an error of law).
40 Re O. (Infants), supra, note 32, at 755 per Davies L.J.; Re F. (A Minor) (Wardship: Appeal), supra, note 10, at 258 per Browne L.J.; Dicocco v. Milne, supra, note 33, at 257–259; P. v. P. (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1984] F.L.R. 99, at 110–111, per SirP., John ArnoldGoogle Scholar
41 [1937] A.C. 473 at 481–82.
42 Supra, note 40.
43 Ibid., at 110.
44 Supra, note 33.
45 Cf. Re P. (A Minor) (Custody) (1983) F.L.R. 401; and see Re L. (Infants) [1962] 1 W.L.R. 886 (adulterous parent).
46 Supra, note 45.
47 The father in Re P. (A Minor) did not seek custody.
48 Cf. B. v. B. [1985] Fam. Law 119; Y. v. Y. (Custody) (1983) Fam. Law 150; cp. B. v. B. (Custody) [1985] Fam. Law 29.
49 For full discussion see Wade, op. cit., note 27, pp. 330–35.
50 (1983) Fam. Law 47.
51 See, e. g., Allington v. Allington [1985] Fam. Law 157, and the cases cited supra in note 48.
52 Cf. Knott, P., Paternal Custody [1987]Google Scholar Fam. Law 218.
53 Supra, note 12.
54 Ibid., at 114.
55 For full discussion see Wade, op. cit., note 27, ch. 15.
56 Law Commission Working Paper No. 96, Review of Child Law: Custody (1986)Google Scholar, para. 6. 36.
57 Children Act 1975 (c. 72), s. 3; Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36), s. 6.
58 D. v. D. (Custody of Child) (1981) F.L.R. 74; Clarke-Hunt v. Newcombe (1983) F.L.R. 482, at 485per Sloss, J. ButlerGoogle Scholar; and see M. v. M. [1987] 1 W.L.R. 404.
59 Re T. (A Minorw) (1974) Fam. Law 48; W. v. Sunderland B.C. [1980] 2 All E.R. 514; Re W. (A Minor) (1980) Fam. Law 120.
60 [1986] A.C. 112.
61 Eekelaar, J., “Gillick in the Divorce Court” (1986) 136 N.L.J. 184Google Scholar.
62 Cp. King, M., “Playing the Symbols—Custody and the Law Commission” [1987] Fam. Law 186, pp. 189–190Google Scholar.
63 Cf. M. v. M., supra, note 58, in which Gillick was not considered.
64 (1978) Fam. Law 247; cp. M. v. M., supra, note 58.
65 ibid.
66 Unreported, Court of Appeal (Civil Division); Lexis 93/82 (Transcript: Association), 24 February 1983.
67 Cf. comments of the Children's Legal Centre on Law Commission Working Paper No. 96, Review of Child Law: Custody (1986), pp. 2, 15Google Scholar; but cp. King, op. cit., note 62, p. 190.
68 [1984] F.L.R. 768.
69 But if a trial court fails to accord proper weight to the child's wishes it may commit an error of balance: cf. M. v. M., supra, note 58.
70 Supra, note 24.