O (Children)

Parental rights, including those protected by article 8 of the European Convention, do not require contact that exposes children to emotional harm. The court must protect children where a parent’s conduct has adversely affected them.

A parent may need to demonstrate a sea change: separating personal grievances from the children’s needs, communicating in child-appropriate terms, avoiding undermining the other parent, and accepting that contact may initially require support. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no reasonable prospect of success.

The father applied for permission to appeal against a judgment of His Honour Judge Milligan in the Portsmouth County Court dated 22 February 2002. His applications for contact with his two children had repeatedly failed, and he had most recently been refused permission even to apply for contact.

He alleged procedural unfairness, professional failures, domestic violence, deficiencies in the mother’s care, and inadequate investigation of matters affecting the children. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, having regard to the children’s welfare and the effect of the father’s continuing conduct on them.

1. Application dismissed. Mr Justice Sumner refused permission to appeal because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
2. The father’s grievances had become an obsession which affected the children. The court accepted that he might have genuine concerns and might himself have been a victim of violence, but the critical issue was the emotional harm caused to the children by the way he pursued those concerns.
3. The father’s rights under domestic law and article 8 of the European Convention were recognised. They did not require contact where his conduct would further damage the children or risk undermining their relationship with their mother. The court’s duty to protect the children required protection from further damage where such harm was plainly occurring.
4. The lower court had been seeking a sea change. The father needed to show that he could separate his intense feelings about perceived injustice, the professionals and the mother from the children’s needs.
5. Future progress required practical evidence of change. He needed to communicate in sensible, helpful and child-appropriate terms, avoid dwelling on past grievances or undermining the mother, and accept that renewed contact might initially require another person to be present. The court encouraged him to seek appropriate help.
6. The court expressed hope that contact might eventually resume for the children’s benefit, but made clear that it could not progress unless the father demonstrated sufficient change and patience. The transcript was to be supplied to him at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The father sought permission to appeal against the judgment of His Honour Judge Milligan in the Portsmouth County Court dated 22 February 2002. Permission was refused.