T (Children), Re

In family contact proceedings, the Court of Appeal has an extremely limited jurisdiction to review an interim order made in the exercise of judicial discretion. It should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. Intervention requires a wrong approach, reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision. A parent must facilitate ordered contact, but a child of twelve cannot realistically be physically compelled to attend and must be allowed to make an individual decision.

Following earlier proceedings under the Hague Convention, two children remained in England with their father. Connell J made an interim order for unsupervised contact with their mother in East Anglia and London, and on 19 January 2001 continued that arrangement pending a final residence hearing. The father sought urgent permission to appeal, relying on the elder child’s refusal to attend, alleged risks of abduction and intoxication, the burden of travel, and his physical disability. The central issue was whether there was any proper basis for appellate intervention.

1. Permission to appeal. The application was refused. The President regarded it as hopeless and likely to waste the parties’ and court’s time.
2. Appellate restraint. The interim contact order was an exercise of Connell J’s discretion. The Court of Appeal would not interfere unless the judge had approached the case wrongly, taken account of matters which should have been excluded, failed to consider relevant matters, or reached a plainly or obviously wrong conclusion. Connell J had considered the evidence at the earlier hearing and had been given the updated position, including the elder child’s objections, the concerns about abduction and alcohol, and the practical difficulties of travel. No such error was shown.
3. Contact arrangements. The President recognised the practical limit on compelling a twelve-year-old child to attend contact. The father was nevertheless required to take both children to London and was warned not to be instrumental in preventing the elder child from deciding for herself whether to see her mother. The younger child wished to see his mother and was subject to the contact order.
4. The application for permission was refused. The transcript was directed to be provided at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the father’s urgent application for permission to appeal.
• Family Division: Connell J continued the interim unsupervised contact arrangements on 19 January 2001 pending the final residence hearing.