FA-2025-000247 - [2025] EWHC 2437 (Fam)

Fecha: 30-Sep-2025

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

11.

Within the foregoing context, the father relies on three grounds of appeal against the order made by the Recorder. Namely that:

The judge erred in rejecting the clear and consistent advice of Cafcass that it would be in the children’s best interests to remain living with the Father during weekdays and Mother during weekends by:

failing to give any good reasons for departing from her conclusions as to what was in the children’s best interests, and;

drawing unsustainable and irrational inferences regarding (1) Ms Shaw’s consideration of the updated CPOMS and (2) the weight to be attached to Ms Shaw’s advice from his unrelated finding that the Father did not support additional indirect contact with Mother.

ii)

The judge erred in placing inappropriate, arguably decisive, weight on the children’s wishes and feelings in undertaking his evaluation of the welfare criteria by:

Failing to give a balanced analysis of the children’s expressions of wishes and feelings;

Failing to consider the expressions of wish reported properly and in context of the case as a whole by:

Not considering the impact of the children’s respective ages on the weight that could properly be attributed to them;

ii)

Failing to make any finding in relation to the allegation by Father that Mother was influencing the children’s wishes;

iii)

Failing to weigh in the balance the clear evidence of the impact of parental conflict on the weight that could properly be attributed to them.

iii)

The judge failed to consider the question of relocation and child arrangements holistically and in particular the impact that the change of week-day residence would have on the children’s relationship with Father.