J (A Child), Re

In contact proceedings involving a parent who is a Schedule 1 offender, the court may withhold direct contact where the parent has not made sufficient progress with reasonably required treatment and it is not yet safe to begin direct contact. An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary refusal of contact where the papers disclose no error in the lower court’s reasoning or exercise of discretion. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no realistic prospect of success.

The applicant, the father of a child born on 17 December 1997, sought permission to appeal three orders made in the Family Division by Judge Pearlman and Singer J. The proceedings concerned his application for contact. A prior conviction from November 1991 made him a Schedule 1 offender. The lower courts considered that direct contact should not begin until he complied with reasonable treatment requirements, but progress with the intended psychotherapy had been limited. The central issue was whether the lower court’s refusal of contact disclosed an erroneous exercise of discretion giving rise to a realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Lord Justice Thorpe dealt with the applications on the papers and in the applicant’s absence, at his request. The respondent did not attend or appear.

1. The applications concerned permission to appeal orders made by Judge Pearlman on 11 July 2001 and 25 October 2001, and by Singer J on 3 September 2001.
2. The issue below was whether the applicant should have contact with his son. The applicant’s prior conviction constituted him a Schedule 1 offender. Although the criminal disposal contemplated voluntary psychotherapy, the intended treatment had made little progress.
3. The lower courts had consistently concluded that it would not be safe to initiate a regime of direct contact until the applicant complied with reasonable treatment requirements. Singer J’s judgment clearly explained why he exercised his discretion against the application for contact and dismissed it.
4. The Court of Appeal found nothing in the material submitted to it suggesting that Singer J had exercised his discretion erroneously. It saw no realistic prospect of success if permission were granted. All applications were therefore refused.

Order: permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused on 29 January 2002. The court found no erroneous exercise of discretion and no realistic prospect of success.
• Family Division: Singer J dismissed the father’s application for contact on 3 September 2001. Judge Pearlman made related orders on 11 July 2001 and 25 October 2001.