S (A Child), Re

On an application for permission to appeal, the appellate court examines the lower decision for misdirection or error. Where the applicant identifies no such error and there is no realistic prospect of success, permission should be refused. A trial judge’s assessment of children’s welfare and exercise of discretion concerning disclosure will stand absent demonstrated error or a plainly wrong conclusion. The appellate court will not reopen historical grievances or retry the welfare evidence. Indirect contact may remain a practical avenue for maintaining a relationship, but it does not itself establish an entitlement to residence, direct contact or disclosure of school information.

Mr Sharma applied for permission to appeal against an order made by Her Honour Judge Hughes in Wolverhampton County Court on 19 April 2002. He had sought residence orders concerning his two daughters, alternatively direct contact, and disclosure of their school addresses.

The applications had been opposed by the mother and by the Children and Family Reporter, whose inquiries led her to conclude that granting them would not advance the children’s welfare. The judge reached the same conclusion. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the order disclosed any misdirection or error warranting permission to appeal.

Lord Justice Thorpe, giving the single judgment, dismissed the application for permission to appeal. There was no order for costs.

1. The court’s task on the permission application was confined to examining the order of 19 April 2002 for misdirection or error. The applicant had to show at least a realistic prospect that an appeal would succeed. His complaints about the earlier history of the family proceedings could not justify reopening that history.
2. The refusal of residence and immediate direct weekly contact was supported by the welfare assessment of both the judge and the Children and Family Reporter. The applicant had not seen either child since May 1997, and the judge considered that he had little insight into the children’s need for continuity, stability and security. The Court of Appeal found no basis for treating the judge’s conclusion as plainly wrong.
3. The application for the school addresses stood on a different footing, but the refusal remained a matter for the judge’s discretion. The judge was entitled to take account of the mother’s anxiety and the risk of unwise or unwanted visits to the schools. No appellate error in that exercise of discretion was shown.
4. Lord Justice Thorpe expressed sympathy for the applicant and suggested that he should persist with indirect contact, while recognising the possibility that the children might later wish to see him voluntarily. That was practical guidance rather than a further legal order or a basis for allowing the application.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 20 September 2002, dismissed Mr Sharma’s application for permission to appeal and made no order for costs.
2. Wolverhampton County Court: Her Honour Judge Hughes refused applications for residence, alternatively direct contact, and disclosure of the children’s school addresses on 19 April 2002.