J (a child)

The Court of Appeal made no substantive determination of a child-residence dispute because the father withdrew his application for permission to appeal. The application was dismissed and the existing orders remained in force. The judgment records, obiter, that shared-residence orders should not be treated as exceptional where the circumstances justify them. It also emphasises the potential value of family assistance, mediation and therapy in disputes where parental conflict may undermine the child’s welfare. Any future contested hearing would require a fresh and independent exercise of discretion focused on the child’s best interests.

Mr J applied for permission to appeal directions made by District Judge Freeman, sitting as a recorder in Manchester County Court on 27 February 2001. The directions refused the attendance of the first court welfare officer for cross-examination, required the second officer to attend and file any appropriate addendum, and dismissed applications to call witnesses and apparently to obtain underlying medical reports and a letter. The dispute concerned arrangements for J, aged five, including shared residence or residence with his father. During discussions before Ward LJ, Mr J withdrew the application. The central issue therefore did not proceed to determination on its merits.

1. Disposition. The father withdrew his application for permission to appeal. The Court therefore dismissed the application without determining the merits of the proposed appeal. The existing orders remained in force.
2. Shared residence. Ward LJ observed that shared-residence orders should not be treated as exceptional merely because of residual judicial reluctance. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal had sought to dispel that approach and indicated that such orders could be made in proper circumstances. The judge expressly left the appropriateness of shared residence in this case undecided.
3. Child welfare and case management. The father was commended for withdrawing from an extensive investigation into the mother’s psychiatric history and from calling numerous witnesses. The judge suggested that intensive family mediation, assisted by a family therapy unit, might better promote the child’s welfare than a prolonged and emotional evidential battle. These observations were directed towards cooperation, conciliation and securing stability for the child.
4. Future proceedings. If the matter proceeded to a fully contested hearing, the court hearing it would be free, and required, to exercise a fresh and independent discretion. The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 April 2001, Ward LJ dismissed the father’s withdrawn application for permission to appeal.
• Manchester County Court: On 27 February 2001, District Judge Freeman made directions concerning attendance and addenda by court welfare officers, proposed witnesses and disclosure of underlying material.