W (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal against a child-contact order should be approached with particular caution where the order was made by an experienced judge after careful consideration of the evidence and with independent social-worker support. Intervention is therefore rare, but unusual procedural or welfare features may justify an oral hearing on notice. Relevant matters may include an apparently aborted mediation process, the absence of therapeutic intervention, and evidence suggesting that the order has produced a sterile outcome.

The father applied for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Lloyd in the Brighton County Court on 1 March 2001. The order provided for no direct contact with his son for an indefinite period, while requiring the mother to use her best endeavours to arrange monthly telephone communication initiated by her on the child’s behalf.

The father challenged the outcome after lengthy private-law proceedings. The Court of Appeal considered the careful lower-court judgment, the independent social worker’s influential recommendations, alleged withdrawal from mediation, the absence of therapeutic intervention, and delay in obtaining the transcript. The immediate issue was whether the permission application should be determined at an oral hearing on notice.

1. Permission application adjourned. The application was directed to an oral hearing on notice in the President’s court in November, before a three-judge court if practicable or otherwise a two-judge court. If permission were granted, the appeal was to follow immediately.
2. Appellate intervention is rare where an experienced circuit judge has carefully considered all the evidence, given a full judgment explaining the conclusion, and received support from an independent social worker’s assessment and recommendation. That circumstance presents a formidable barrier to permission.
3. The court nevertheless identified matters capable of justifying fuller appellate consideration. The asserted collapse of an arranged mediation process and the absence of any therapeutic attempt to resolve the family’s difficulties appeared not to have been reflected in the judgment under review. The court also considered that a recent approach to family therapy left a possibility, although not a strong one, that intervention could improve the bleak outcome.
4. The court emphasised the need for prompt listing of permission applications. Delay in obtaining the lower court transcript had postponed consideration for several months and risked undermining effective appellate justice.
5. Further directions were required to correct defects in the bundles and index so that the parties and the appellate court would have identical, properly paginated documentation at the next hearing.

• Brighton County Court: His Honour Judge Lloyd gave judgment and made the order on 1 March 2001, providing no direct contact for an indefinite period and monthly telephone communication initiated by the mother on the child’s behalf.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The father’s permission application was adjourned for an oral hearing on notice before a two- or three-judge court. No determination of permission or the substantive appeal was made at this stage.