The High Court family division has refused all grounds for an appeal on a decision concerning a nine-year-old boy known in court as O.
A judge, Recorder Ranjit Singh, sitting at Horsham Family Court on 17 August 2026, had ordered that O move from living with his mother to his father “forthwith”.
The Recorder granted the mother a stay and the mother promptly appealed. High Court judge Mr Justice Keehan continued the stay and ordered that the application for permission to appeal should be heard orally with the appeal immediately to follow.
In B v G (Test for Appeal) [2026], Mrs Justice Lieven heard submissions on the appeal rather than determining permission separately.
The mother raised nine grounds of appeal, including inadequate consideration of O’s wishes and feelings, unjustified departure from the local authority transition and safeguarding plan, and inadequate scrutiny of the father’s parenting capacity.
She also raised grounds for appeal on the basis of the impact of O’s removal on a sibling relationship, insufficient analysis of risks from the father’s mental health, imbalanced consideration of the mother’s mental health, procedural unfairness due to the timescale, and error of approach to welfare analysis at the interim stage.
The mother’s appeal grounds also included that “the judge erred in applying the law”.
Mrs Justice Lieven considered whether to allow an appeal on the basis that the decision of the lower court was either “wrong” or “unjust” because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.
The appellant mother was represented by Julie O’Malley. The father was represented by Catharine Langley.
O’Malley submitted on the mother’s behalf that Recorder Singh “failed to adequately consider O’s wishes and feelings”.
She argued that Recorder Singh did not hear directly from O about his wishes, or hear oral evidence by the parents, but did hear evidence from a social worker who conveyed O’s.
Mrs Justice Lieven reviewed the evidence, particularly from the social worker’s evidence, and found that the judge “plainly did take into account O’s wishes and feelings”.
The judge found that eight of the nine grounds for appeal the mother raised were “unarguable”. She did, however, consider whether Recorder Singh was wrong to depart from the local authority transition plan and its safeguards.
The local authority had proposed a two-week transition plan with a build-up of contact between O and his father, leading up to the transfer of residence.
O’ Malley submitted that if the judge was going to depart from this, he needed to give clear reasons for doing so. She also suggested that the plan was “too far too fast” and could end up in the situation where the father cannot cope and O ends up in foster care. She said that the idea of a “temporary removal” would be very confusing for O.
In the judgment under appeal, the Recorder said that O should move to live with his father in “accordance with the transition plan that has been put together by the local authority”. The order says that O is to move “forthwith”.
Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that although this ground was arguable, she still dismissed it as a ground for appeal.
She said: “As I have set out above, after announcing the decision I ordered that O transferred residence that afternoon, having concluded that it would be in O’s best interests. I have made orders for the [mother] to have contact.”
The case will be re-listed in the Horsham Family Court in approximately six weeks for review and further orders.
