H (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal from a discretionary family order may be refused where the first-instance judge accepted the evidence, gave reasons for rejecting professional advice, and chose between finely balanced alternatives. A renewed oral application will not succeed merely because the applicant wishes to challenge that evaluation. The appellate court may maintain an earlier paper refusal after reviewing the papers and finding insufficient prospects of success and no reason to alter its view.

On 8 October 2002, His Honour Judge Mitchell, sitting in the Northampton County Court, ordered that one child live with the applicant mother. He made no order concerning two other children, and ordered contact between the respondent father and the child by consent. The matter was listed for review.

The father applied for permission to appeal and a stay. Both applications were refused on paper. He sought an oral renewal, but did not attend the hearing and his legal representatives had ceased to act. The central issue was whether the papers disclosed a sufficient basis to revisit the earlier refusal.

Application refused. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judgment of Lord Justice Thorpe, reviewed the papers again, particularly the note of the county court judge’s judgment, despite the respondent’s absence and lack of representation.

1. The earlier refusal of permission was maintained. The judge below had accepted the mother’s evidence, had been strongly critical of the father, and had explained at length why he rejected the Children and Family Reporter’s advice.
2. The county court decision involved a discretionary choice between finely balanced alternatives. The Court of Appeal found no specific reason to depart from its earlier assessment that the proposed challenge had insufficient prospects of success.
3. The fact that the respondent’s legal team had ceased to act, apparently because continuing public funding was unavailable, and the written advice previously obtained from counsel, did not alter that conclusion. The court’s renewed review of the papers disclosed no single reason for changing the paper order.
4. The applications were refused. There was no order for costs.

1. Northampton County Court: On 8 October 2002, His Honour Judge Mitchell made a child arrangements order, directed contact by consent, and listed the matter for review.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The father’s applications for permission to appeal and a stay were refused on paper. Following an oral renewal, the Court of Appeal again refused the application.