U (Children), Re

Residence decisions concerning children involve a very broad judicial discretion. An appellate court should not grant permission for further review where the judge has identified sufficient reasons for the decision and the order is supported by the welfare evidence. A judgment need not address every fact or submission at length if its essential reasoning is clear. Where parental homes are widely separated, the court should seek the best or least harmful arrangement and preserve contact as far as practicable. Less frequent contact may properly be balanced by contact of reasonable duration.

Mr U applied for permission to appeal from the order and judgment of His Honour Judge Cotterill in the Taunton County Court on 22 December 2000. The county court confirmed residence of the parties’ two children with their mother, who had moved from Somerset to Yorkshire, and ordered contact with the father during half-terms and half the school holidays.

The application relied on the mother’s endometriosis, letters written by the children, admissions concerning her propensity for violence, and concern about the effect of separation from the children’s familiar home and relationships. The central issue was whether the county court’s reasons and evaluation disclosed grounds for further appellate review.

Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. The determination of residence in circumstances of parental separation involved a very broad discretion. Judge Cotterill found that the children were well cared for, well settled and content with their mother, and that they had a closer attachment to her. Removing them from her care would cause considerable emotional distress. The decision was in complete accord with the court welfare officer’s assessment.
2. The brevity of the county court’s judgment did not justify permission to appeal. Although fuller reasons might have made the decision more acceptable to the father, the judge had stated the principal reasons for confirming the existing arrangements. A longer judgment would not have altered the essential decision.
3. The evidence relied upon did not establish an arguable basis for intervention. The mother’s endometriosis was peripheral and had been investigated. The children’s letters showed affection and that they missed their paternal family and former customs, but did not demonstrate that the residence decision was wrong. The journals recording admissions of violence had been considered by the welfare officer, who nevertheless recommended that the children remain with their mother.
4. Separation and divorce may harm children, but the court’s task is to mitigate that risk by selecting the best or least harmful arrangement and maintaining contact with the separated parent as far as possible. The contact order reasonably addressed the 250-mile distance by providing less frequent but extended contact.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On an application for permission to appeal from the Taunton County Court order and judgment of 22 December 2000, the court dismissed the application: [2001] EWCA Civ 565.