F (Children), Re

Where a first-instance judge has resolved narrow child-welfare issues in the exercise of a broad discretion, permission to appeal should not be granted unless the proposed appeal has realistic prospects of success or would provide a real advantage. An appellate court has no useful role in reconsidering such discretionary decisions merely because the applicant challenges the factual inferences or seeks to introduce fresh evidence.

The application concerned an order made by His Honour Judge Wade in the Swindon County Court on 26 June 2002. The proceedings involved six children. The local authority sought a care order for the eldest child and supervision orders for the other five. Mr F sought unsupervised contact with all the children.

The judge continued the care and supervision orders and maintained supervised contact, while indicating that the local authority should make further progress. Mr F sought permission to appeal, alleging errors in factual inference and legal direction and seeking to rely on fresh evidence. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects or utility to justify a substantive appeal.

Lord Justice Thorpe dismissed the application for permission to appeal and directed that it was not to be renewed.

1. The applications below concerned a care order for the eldest child, B, who had suffered a serious motor accident and was living in a specialist clinic, supervision orders for the five younger children, and the level of contact between Mr F and the children.
2. The judge below exercised a broad welfare discretion. He considered that continuing the care order would be helpful while B remained in specialist accommodation. He also considered that continuing supervision would support the first respondent and serve the interests of the children. The court noted that he had specifically considered the checklist in section 1(3) of the statute.
3. Although the judge recognised the force of the criticism made by the guardian ad litem and required the local authority to improve its approach, he concluded that it was premature to remove supervision from contact. Maintaining supervised contact was an exercise of discretion on the evidence before him.
4. Given the narrow issues and the discretionary nature of each decision, there was no possible useful role for the Court of Appeal. The proposed grounds disclosed no realistic prospect of success, and a substantive appeal would provide no advantage. The applicant’s absence from the hearing did not alter that conclusion.

Order: Application dismissed. It was not to be renewed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — application for permission to appeal from an order made by His Honour Judge Wade in the Swindon County Court on 26 June 2002. The application was dismissed and was not to be renewed.