K (Children), Re

Permission to appeal should be granted only where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success or there is another compelling reason for it to be heard.

Where a trial judge has carefully assessed the evidence, seen and heard the witnesses, and correctly applied the Children Act 1989 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, permission should be refused where there is no reasonable prospect of appellate intervention. The court may also refuse further expert evidence where the issue is already sufficiently addressed by welfare evidence and the court’s own experience. Expert evidence remains fact-sensitive and may be essential in other cases.

PK, the father, applied for permission to appeal an order of Mr Recorder Wildblood QC in the Southampton County Court dated 24 January 2002. The order refused direct contact with his two teenage children, allowed limited indirect contact, restricted aspects of parental responsibility and information, and imposed a restriction under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

The children opposed contact after their parents’ separation, the father’s conviction and imprisonment for indecent assaults on the mother, and prolonged correspondence between the father and one child’s school. The father abandoned his proposed appeal concerning the older child because of the child’s age. The central questions were whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success or another compelling reason to be heard, and whether psychological expert evidence concerning parental alienation syndrome was required.

1. Disposition. Mr Justice Bodey dismissed the father’s application for permission to appeal. The Recorder’s order was justified on the evidence and was in the interests of the children’s welfare. The judgment transcript was to be supplied to the father at public expense.
2. Permission threshold. An applicant must show that the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard. Having considered the Recorder’s detailed judgment, the evidence, and the father’s written arguments, there was no reasonable possibility that the Court of Appeal would interfere with any part of the order.
3. Welfare assessment. The Recorder had seen and heard the witnesses, correctly applied the provisions of the Children Act 1989, and considered article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellate court should not encourage further litigation where the proposed challenge had no reasonable prospect of success and further proceedings would place an unfair burden on the mother and children.
4. Expert evidence. The refusal of a psychological expert to investigate alleged parental alienation syndrome was correct. The children had already been assessed by an experienced welfare officer, and the proposed evidence would be intrusive and would establish no more than the court already knew. The court emphasised that psychological and other expert evidence may be essential and highly valuable in other cases, since each case turns on its particular facts.
5. Other matters. The father’s challenge to the school’s approach to information was outside the judge’s province. A Family Division judge would not ordinarily determine that issue as a free-standing matter in proceedings concerned with the welfare of children and decisions relating to them.

1. Southampton County Court — On 24 January 2002, Mr Recorder Wildblood QC refused direct contact and made related orders concerning indirect contact, parental responsibility, information and future applications.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 4 October 2002, Mr Justice Bodey dismissed the father’s application for permission to appeal: [2002] EWCA Civ 1424.