Re P (A Child)

Where a parent accepts that the child’s current position has been correctly assessed and no longer seeks direct contact, there is no live issue requiring the court to permit a challenge to expert evidence or commission a further report. The court has no power to use supervision or care-order proceedings to pressure the resident parent to facilitate contact where there is no evidence of psychiatric disorder or significant harm. Such proceedings would necessarily involve the child. A future application for leave remains possible when circumstances change and renewed proceedings are less likely to place pressure on the child.

The father sought residence and contact orders concerning his daughter, who lived with her mother and maternal grandmother. After contact stopped, expert and Official Solicitor reports supported the child remaining with her mother and recommended a carefully managed approach to contact. The father withdrew his residence application and accepted that only indirect contact should continue, but sought to test the expert report and obtain a further report. The Recorder refused those applications, maintaining indirect contact and requiring leave for any further application. The father sought permission to appeal, arguing that the court should place pressure on the mother because her conduct allegedly posed a risk of significant harm to the child.

Application for permission to appeal refused. Lady Justice Hale gave the leading judgment, and Lord Justice Mantell agreed.

1. The father had accepted the current assessment of his daughter’s position and no longer sought direct contact. In those circumstances, there was no live issue requiring the court to permit the expert report to be tested or to order a further expert report.
2. The father’s proposed pressure on the mother depended on evidence that she suffered from a psychiatric illness or personality disorder which caused the difficulties. There was no such evidence in the reports or medical records. The expert psychiatrist had found nothing supporting that case.
3. In those circumstances, the court had no power to use the threat of supervision or ultimately a care order to pressure the mother. It could not attempt to do so without drawing the child into proceedings about her future.
4. The proposed appeal therefore had no prospect of success. The appropriate course was to continue indirect contact and, so far as possible, work with the Contact Consultancy Agency.
5. The refusal did not permanently close the possibility of renewed direct contact. The father or the child’s half-sister could seek leave to apply at an appropriate time, although the court indicated that a further application should not be made very soon and that any renewed proceedings should avoid placing undue pressure on the child.

The order refusing permission to appeal was made.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 February 2001, refused permission to appeal in Re P (A Child), [2001] EWCA Civ 154.
2. High Court of Justice, Family Division: Mr Recorder McFarlane QC ordered regular indirect contact, continued work with the Contact Consultancy Agency and a restriction requiring leave for further applications. He refused the father’s applications to test Dr Wozencroft’s report and obtain a further expert report.