G (A Child), Re

In a child-contact dispute, an application for permission to appeal is not a substitute for a first-instance adjudication of the child’s developing relationship with a parent. Frustration with an existing contact arrangement does not establish an error in the lower court’s adjudication. Where the child is habitually resident in Scotland, the Family Law Act 1986 may indicate that the appropriate forum is the Scottish sheriff court. A parent should have access to a specialist and independent determination of contact where it is unsafe to leave the issue solely to the other parent.

The father applied in person for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Cryan on 24 July 2000. The order required the mother to pass promptly to the child letters, presents and similar items sent by the father. It was to last for three months, or less if the father commenced proceedings in Scotland and obtained a first appointment there.

The father had maintained indirect contact but had not commenced Scottish proceedings. The central issues were whether the Court of Appeal should intervene in the absence of any demonstrated error and which court was the proper forum to determine the child’s future relationship with her father.

Application refused. Lord Justice Thorpe gave a single judgment.

1. The father’s frustration with the limited indirect-contact arrangement did not demonstrate any error in Judge Cryan’s adjudication. The Court of Appeal was not the appropriate court to determine the substantive and developing contact relationship at first instance.
2. The child’s interests required adjudication by a specialist and independent judge. It was unsafe to leave the future relationship solely to the mother where the evidence suggested that she might place her own wishes above the child’s interests.
3. The proposed Scottish proceedings had not been initiated. The judge considered that the suggestion that the Scottish court lacked jurisdiction unless the father first acquired three months’ habitual residence appeared implausible.
4. On a swift consideration of sections 8 and 9 of the Family Law Act 1986, the Sheriff Court of Glasgow appeared to have jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident within the sheriffdom. The judge indicated that the father should obtain specialist advice in Scotland and bring the contact issue before that court.
5. Permission to appeal was therefore refused. The order below remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: on 24 July 2000, His Honour Judge Cryan ordered the mother to pass promptly to the child letters, presents and similar items sent by the father, subject to a three-month limit or earlier Scottish proceedings.