W (Children), Re

In child contact proceedings, the welfare of the children must remain the central focus. A judgment which concentrates excessively on adult behaviour and approaches a comparatively narrow contact issue in an unduly forensic manner may require further appellate scrutiny. Where a trial judge appears to depart from a court welfare officer’s material recommendation without explaining the departure, the Court of Appeal may require the relevant oral evidence to be transcribed and adjourn the permission application for a further hearing. The court may direct that any appeal follow if permission is granted.

The father applied for permission to appeal from an order made by His Honour Judge Latham in the Barnet County Court concerning continuing staying contact with his three children. He sought to extend monthly contact from Saturday morning to Sunday evening so that it included Friday evening and Sunday evening, or collection from school on Friday and return on Monday.

The court welfare officer had contemplated increased contact after the father’s proposed move to Watford. That move occurred before the trial, but the judge dealt with the extended-contact option only by implication and did not explain the apparent departure from the officer’s recommendation. The central issue was whether the application should receive further appellate consideration.

1. Permission and further hearing. The Court of Appeal did not determine the merits of the proposed appeal or grant permission at this stage. It adjourned the application for a further oral hearing on notice, with an appeal to follow if permission was granted.
2. Updated welfare evidence. The welfare officer’s written report had identified a possible Friday-to-Monday arrangement if the father moved to Watford. That move had taken place before trial. The court therefore considered it important to obtain and consider her oral evidence given with knowledge of the changed circumstances, rather than relying only on the earlier written report.
3. Adequacy of the lower court’s reasoning. The trial judge stated in broad terms that he accepted the welfare officer’s conclusions, but dealt with the extended-contact proposal only by implication. His findings concerning an incident at the children’s school led him to bar the father from attending there, yet the judgment did not expressly explain how those findings justified rejecting the proposed arrangement. The absence of clear reasoning warranted further consideration.
4. Child welfare focus. Thorpe LJ expressed concern that the 88-page judgment, delivered on a slender issue concerning the amount of continuing contact, had concentrated excessively on adult behaviour and approached the matter too forensically. The court was concerned that this may have obscured the importance of the children’s welfare and their positive relationship with their father.
5. The matter was directed to be listed before a two-judge constitution including Thorpe LJ, preferably before 3 August 2001. The transcript of the welfare officer’s oral evidence was to be prepared urgently. The father was warned about the costs implications of a further hearing.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was adjourned for a further oral hearing on notice, with an appeal to follow if permission was granted.
2. Barnet County Court: His Honour Judge Latham made the March 2001 contact order which the father sought to vary.