T (A Child), Re

In a child-contact application, the court’s task is to determine the child’s best interests, rather than give priority to the parent’s sincere wish for contact. Where family members’ rights conflict, the child’s rights and welfare require careful consideration. A mature child’s clearly expressed wishes may justify refusing contact where contact would not serve the child’s welfare. An order requiring leave before further applications may fall within the court’s discretion where there have been frequent applications and the child is approaching an age at which she can decide contact for herself.

Mrs T sought permission to appeal against an order of Portsmouth County Court dated 7 August 2000. The order dismissed her repeated application for contact with her daughter, J, who was subject to a care order and had consistently declined direct contact.

The county court judge found that J had sufficient understanding and maturity to express her views and concluded that her best interests required the application to be dismissed. Mrs T argued that the judge had failed to consider article 8 of the Convention. She also challenged an order under section 91.14 restricting further applications without leave. The central issues were whether the welfare assessment was legally adequate and whether the restriction on further applications was within the judge’s discretion.

The Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Thorpe, dismissed the application for permission to appeal. The order below was described as unimpeachable.

1. Child’s welfare and rights. The court confirmed that the decisive consideration in a contact application was the child’s best interests, not the parent’s sincere and strongly held desire to resume contact. The judge was entitled to attach substantial weight to J’s maturity, her clearly expressed wishes, her educational circumstances and the need to support and protect her.
2. Article 8. Although the county court judge had not expressly referred to article 8 of the Convention, that omission did not undermine the decision. In a conflict between family rights, the court must consider the welfare and rights of the child as well as those of the parent. The welfare assessment undertaken by the judge addressed that essential consideration.
3. Restriction on further applications. The order under section 91.14 requiring leave before another application was within the judge’s discretion. Relevant circumstances included the history of frequent applications and the fact that J was approaching an age at which she would decide contact for herself and the court would lose its role.

Permission to appeal was therefore refused and the county court order remained in force. [2001] EWCA Civ 296

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 February 2001, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. Portsmouth County Court: His Honour Judge Milligan dismissed Mrs T’s application for contact on 7 August 2000 and made an order requiring leave before further applications.