C (Children), Re

On an application for permission to appeal a child-contact order, the Court of Appeal stressed that its function is limited to correcting errors at trial. It is not an avenue for an independent review of a welfare decision. Questions concerning the amount of contact fall within the trial judge’s wide discretion. A parent’s disagreement with factual findings or with the contact regime does not itself justify appellate intervention. A careful and rational judgment explaining why one parent’s evidence was preferred does not, without more, establish bias or lack of professionalism.

Miss Gerrard sought permission to appeal an order made by Judge Daley on 7 March 2001 concerning residence and contact for her three children. A district judge had previously made a residence order in her favour. Judge Headley dismissed the father’s appeal on residence but allowed his appeal on contact because the factual background required fuller investigation. After a hearing over several days, Judge Daley preferred the father’s evidence, rejected the mother’s allegations of sexualised violence, and made a contact order.

The mother alleged bias and lack of professionalism, challenged the factual findings, and said that the contact regime was harmful. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should intervene in the trial judge’s exercise of welfare discretion.

Lord Justice Thorpe confirmed the provisional refusal of permission to appeal given on 3 August 2001.

1. The judgment under challenge was full, careful and rational. It gave an acceptable explanation for preferring the father’s evidence. The material supplied no proper basis for the allegations of bias or lack of professionalism.
2. The investigation of the family history had taken place unusually late, but the appeal ultimately concerned the quantum and arrangement of contact. In that field the trial judge exercises a wide discretion.
3. The Court of Appeal’s limited function was to correct errors made at trial. It was not entitled to conduct an independent discretionary review simply because the appellant disagreed with the factual conclusions or considered the contact arrangements unsatisfactory.
4. The continuing management of contact should remain with the Liverpool County Court. Future hearings need not necessarily be listed before Judge Daley and could be placed before another appropriate judge.

Permission to appeal was refused.

• District judge: In October 2000, made a residence order in favour of the mother.
• Judge Headley: In January 2001, dismissed the father’s appeal on residence but allowed his appeal on contact, directing a fuller hearing.
• Judge Daley: On 7 March 2001, after a hearing over several days, preferred the father’s evidence, rejected the mother’s allegations, and made the relevant contact order.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 August 2001, confirmed the provisional refusal of permission and declined to entertain the appeal.