B (A Child)

Appellate interference with a contact order made in the exercise of a broad discretion is limited. An arguable error of principle concerning excessive separation between a child and parent may nevertheless justify a hearing on notice. A parent who has obtained leave to remove a child permanently from the jurisdiction bears a heavy onus to secure maximum possible compensatory contact. Continuing contact should be approached generously, with mediation preferred to litigation where appropriate. A contact order should also reflect practical notice obligations and provide a parent with parental responsibility with relevant school-holiday information.

Mr B applied for permission to appeal an order made by Her Honour Judge Fisher in the Coventry County Court on 16 April 2002. The order regulated contact with his son for the remainder of 2002, against the background of the child’s residence in Spain and planned schooling in Marbella.

The Court of Appeal considered alleged omissions from the drawn order, the father’s entitlement to school-holiday information, the refusal of proposed mediation, and an arguable complaint that the periods of separation permitted by the order were excessive. Since the order was nearly spent, the immediate issue was whether the application should be adjourned for a hearing on notice and future contact arrangements addressed.

The application for permission to appeal was adjourned for a hearing on notice on 19 December 2002. The Court did not finally determine the merits of the proposed appeal.

1. The prospects of interfering with the order were limited because the judge had exercised a broad discretion and had made arrangements for a finite future period, most of which had already elapsed.
2. The judge’s extempore judgment required notice, as soon as practicable, of any removal if the child was not resident in Spain. That provision was absent from the drawn order. Its apparent purpose was to enable additional contact when the child was staying at the respondent’s Leamington home, and its insertion was arguably a matter for the slip rule.
3. A parent with parental responsibility was entitled to information about the child’s future school holidays. That issue needed to be reflected in any future order.
4. A parent who had obtained leave to remove a child permanently from the jurisdiction bore a heavy onus to secure the maximum possible compensatory contact. Continuing contact should be approached with generosity, and mediation was preferable to continued litigation where practicable. The case might be suitable for referral under the Court of Appeal’s ADR scheme.
5. The existing order was time-expired and future contact therefore had to be agreed or determined and recorded in a replacement order. The father retained an arguable point of principle that the periods of separation should have been more restricted, particularly because an unchallenged order might influence future orders in the Coventry County Court.

The transcript was ordered to be expedited.

• Coventry County Court — Her Honour Judge Fisher made an order on 16 April 2002 regulating contact between the father and child for the remainder of 2002.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The father’s application for permission to appeal was adjourned for a hearing on notice on 19 December 2002.