B (Children), Re

Applications challenging case-management decisions and a freeing order will be refused where the lower court acted within its discretionary ambit, properly directed itself, and afforded the parent a fair hearing. An appellate court will not interfere merely because a litigant disagrees with the exercise of discretion. This includes refusal of assistance from a McKenzie friend, restrictions on access to court papers, and dispensing with parental consent to freeing proceedings where the statutory and discretionary requirements have been addressed without error or misdirection.

Mr B sought permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Hamilton in the Birmingham County Court. The orders permitted his solicitors to come off the record, refused the assistance of a proposed McKenzie friend, restricted the release and use of court papers, and dispensed with the consent of Mr B and his wife to freeing orders concerning their six children.

The applications followed earlier care proceedings and the parents’ extreme reaction, including criminal conduct and protests. Mr B was in prison and did not attend, but representations were submitted by his former McKenzie friend. The central issues were whether the judge had erred in managing the proceedings or in exercising his discretion on the freeing applications.

1. Applications dismissed. The applications for permission to appeal were hopeless and were dismissed. They would not be relisted.
2. The judge was entitled, in his discretion, to permit Mr B’s solicitors to come off the record after giving him repeated opportunities to reconsider that decision. He was also entitled to refuse the proposed McKenzie friend.
3. In refusing the McKenzie friend, the judge had directed himself by reference to R v Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling [1999] 2 FLR 1126. The appellate court found no error or misdirection in that approach.
4. The restrictions on release and use of court papers were discretionary decisions fully justified by the campaign Mr B had conducted between the hearings. They were manifestly within the judge’s discretionary ambit.
5. The challenge to the freeing order also failed. The judge had carefully explained his reasoning and had applied the relevant authority in deciding that a hypothetical reasonable parent in Mr B’s position would have consented to the freeing arrangement.
6. Although the judge had been provoked by Mr B, the proceedings had been conducted so as to afford him a fair hearing. The transcript was to be supplied to Mr B at public expense.

• Birmingham County Court: His Honour Judge Hamilton made the case-management and freeing orders described in the judgment, following earlier care proceedings.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications 2002/0451 and 2002/0452 were refused and dismissed on 28 June 2002.