G (A Child), Re

Where an applicant knowingly fails to attend a permission hearing, the court may proceed in the applicant’s absence. Permission to appeal should be refused where discretionary child-welfare orders are fully justified by the findings, and no misdirection, error or realistic prospect of success is shown. Transfer of care between parents may fall within the discretionary ambit where sustained opposition to contact means that the child may otherwise never know the other parent. Clear welfare evidence and findings on credibility and motivation may support that conclusion. Where a parent declines to make submissions on contact, the court may order reasonable supervised contact, leaving practical arrangements to agreement or further order.

The mother sought permission to appeal four orders concerning her child. Two orders made by His Honour Judge Hornby in the county court required contact with the father and disclosure by government agencies of the mother’s whereabouts. Munby J made a wardship order transferring care and control to the father and directing him to collect the child from school. His Honour Judge Tyrer later confirmed that arrangement and ordered reasonable supervised contact with the mother.

The mother did not attend the Court of Appeal hearing, despite being notified and recently reminded that attendance was required. The central issues were whether the applications disclosed any arguable error or orders outside the lower courts’ discretion, and whether they should be heard in her absence.

All four applications for permission to appeal were refused. Lord Justice Thorpe directed that none should be restored to the list.

1. The court proceeded in the mother’s absence because it was satisfied that she knew the hearing date and had been clearly told that she was required to attend.
2. The two applications concerning Judge Hornby’s orders disclosed no basis for intervention. The orders were discretionary, and the facts as found fully justified requiring contact with the father and requiring disclosure of the mother’s whereabouts. Those applications had also been overtaken by the subsequent wardship proceedings.
3. Munby J had taken considerable care before transferring care and control from the mother to the father. Although the mother had served the child well and the child did not wish to leave her care, the judge concluded that without the transfer the child would never know his father. The court welfare officer’s evidence supported the conclusion that contact controlled by the mother would not serve the child’s best interests. The order fell well within the discretionary ambit on the findings made.
4. Judge Tyrer made clear findings about the parties’ credibility and the mother’s motivation. He accepted the welfare officer’s investigation and conclusions, and was justified in maintaining the arrangement under which the child was cared for by the father. The judgment was comprehensive, extending to 53 pages, and contained no demonstrated misdirection or error. The mother’s written submissions disclosed no prospect of success.
5. Because the mother had declined to make submissions about contact, Judge Tyrer could properly order reasonable supervised contact and leave the details to written agreement between the parties’ solicitors or further order. Relisting the applications would achieve nothing beyond wasting court time and would risk no injustice.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 1022, Lord Justice Thorpe heard four applications for permission to appeal in the mother’s absence. All applications were refused, and none was to be restored to the list.
• Bow County Court: His Honour Judges Hornby and Tyrer made orders concerning contact, disclosure of whereabouts, and the substantive wardship arrangements.
• Principal Registry: Munby J made a wardship order transferring care and control of the child to the father and directing collection from school.