All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Court of Appeal; Mummery, Rimer and Black; 29 October 2010)
A Cafcass caseworker was concerned about the impact of contact on the child and recommended only limited contact. The caseworker was unable to attend a directions hearing so the judge decided to continue without him but had a telephone conversation with him. The judge then treated the hearing as a final hearing, ordering indirect contact, with direct contact only four times a year, in mother's presence.
The father's appeal allowed. Written submissions are rarely a substitute for oral evidence. The father had not had a chance to put questions to the caseworker. The judge had given the caseworker a chance to give his evidence without cross-examination. The judge should not consider evidence of which not all parties are aware and upon which unable to make representations. The telephone conversation with the witness was a mistake on judge's part that had not been rectified by his relation of the conversation to the parties. A one hour directions hearing had turned into a final hearing without full evidence and cross-examination.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.
Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement