Mother v Father [2025] EWFC 247 is the hearing of Mother’s appeal against a final order made by Magistrates on 17th December 2024. The case was in respect of 2 children – A, a girl aged 8 and B, a boy aged 6. The Magistrates were asked to determine the child arrangements and granted a joint “lives with” order whereby the children were to spend seven days in each parent’s care in an alternating pattern.
The Mother sought to appeal that decision and, in her application, advanced 14 Grounds of Appeal. Despite advancing so many grounds, the issues between the parties at the final hearing were rather narrow:
- How many days the children should spend with each parent. The Mother seeking that they spend five days in fourteen with the Father. The Father seeking that they spend seven days in fourteen with him.
- The terminology of the order, whether it should be “live with both parents” or “ live with their Mother and spend time with their Father”.
The Mother’s grounds were grouped together under three headings: procedural irregularity, lack of analysis and failure to ‘consider the whole picture’ and that the decision of the Magistrates is ‘wrong’. Ultimately, the Mother’s appeal was dismissed. However, the Court’s analysis in respect of each ground sets out clear guidance regarding the Magistrates Court procedure with reference to rules and case law which serve as a good reminder for practitioners, as follows:
- Family Procedure Rules (“FPR”), Rule 27.2 states “after a hearing, the court will make its decision as soon as is practicable” and under Rule 27.2(3), the Court must give written reasons. This must be considered in light of an understanding of the realities of courtroom life. In this matter, the hearing took place on 17th December 2024 and the reasons were circulated on 7th January 2025 which meant Christmas and New Year took place in the intervening period. The Court considered that time period to be reasonable considering the circumstances.
- The Legal Advisor and Magistrates are entitled to ask questions during evidence as they see fit. It is an important task of any Court to test what is being said and focus on the issues that are important to the decision to be made.
- It may be appropriate to seek a short adjournment if case law is raised by a Judge, Magistrates or Legal Advisor that was not provided to the parties in advance, albeit there is nothing to prohibit a Judge, Magistrates or Legal Advisor referring to case law not provided in advance.
- The conduct of the hearing is a matter for the Magistrates and Legal Advisor.
- Within the reasons given, the Magistrates do not have to record all the evidence nor set out in detail the evidence that they did or did not accept. The fact that certain issues/evidence were not recorded in the decision does not vitiate the decision.
- It is for the Magistrates to weigh up the evidence and submissions heard and reach their decisions. The decision is for the Magistrates to make, not the Cafcass Officer.
- It is open to the Magistrates to decide how much weight to put on each piece of evidence. In this case, there were three Section 7 reports, two of which were written by one Cafcass Officer and the third by another. The Magistrates placed more weight upon the most recent report than they did the previous two given that this report was up to date and considered the children’s wishes and feelings following contact with the Father over the summer holidays.
- As with all reasons given for decisions, more detail could have been given but that does not vitiate the decision.
Many of the grounds put forward by the Mother were considered to be without merit but this case serves as a good reminder of the Court procedure to be followed, particularly for final child arrangements hearings in the Magistrates Court.
Members of Becket Chambers can assist in proceedings relating to child arrangements. Please contact the Clerks via clerks@becket-chambers.co.uk for more information.
