S (Children), Re

Where a parent is restricted from making further applications concerning children without leave, a renewed request must address the children’s welfare and security. It should explain why the proposed application is now in their best interests and would not destabilise their care. Relevant considerations include the time elapsed and whether the parent shows greater understanding of the children’s needs. An application focused on irrelevant grievances, rather than those matters, may properly be refused within the judge’s discretion. Such a restriction does not necessarily prevent a fresh, properly formulated application supported by relevant evidence.

A father sought permission to appeal against an order of His Honour Judge McDowell at Wandsworth County Court on 1 November 2000. The order refused, without a hearing, requests for transcripts, transfer of the proceedings and permission to make further Children Act applications.

The refusal followed an earlier order by His Honour Judge Winstanley on 8 June 2000, which dismissed applications for contact and disclosure, directed that the children live with their mother, and prohibited further applications without leave until 7 June 2002. The father argued that he had been denied a hearing, family life and a fair trial, and had been discriminated against because of disability. The central issue was whether the refusal of leave was justified on the material before the county court.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The transcript of His Honour Judge Rose’s earlier judgment had by then become available, so the procedural difficulty identified in the county court was cured.

1. The relevant question on an application for leave was whether the father had supplied reasons showing that a further application would now promote the children’s welfare and security and would not destabilise their care. His documents concentrated on matters unrelated to those issues and did not explain how the position had materially changed.
2. The court was entitled to consider whether sufficient time had elapsed since the previous attempt and whether the father had developed a greater understanding of the children’s needs. On the material before him, Judge McDowell was acting within his discretion in refusing leave. His description of the application as misconceived was correct in part.
3. The earlier restrictions did not shut the father out from contact for all time. Judge Rose’s reasons showed that the possibility of future contact had not been excluded permanently.
4. The sensible course was a fresh application, on the correct form, for leave to apply for a contact order. It should be supported by a witness statement addressing the children’s welfare and security, with copies of the relevant judgments. It should initially be made to Wandsworth County Court, preferably before Judge Rose if practicable. The court could then assess the time elapsed, the father’s understanding of the children’s needs and whether renewed proceedings would cause justified disruption.

The application for permission to appeal was refused. A transcript of the judgment was ordered to be supplied to the father at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 15 May 2001: Refused permission to appeal against Judge McDowell’s order and directed that a transcript be supplied at public expense.
• Wandsworth County Court, 1 November 2000: Judge McDowell refused requests for transcripts, transfer and permission to make further Children Act applications without a hearing.
• Court of Appeal, 3 October 2000: Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal against Judge Winstanley’s order of 8 June 2000.
• Wandsworth County Court, 8 June 2000: Judge Winstanley dismissed applications for contact and disclosure, ordered that the children live with their mother, and restricted further Children Act applications without leave until 7 June 2002.
• Wandsworth County Court, 15 February 1999: Judge Rose dismissed applications for parental responsibility and residence and imposed earlier restrictions on applications without leave.