I (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed challenge has no real prospect of success. In child-arrangements cases, an appeal is not the proper vehicle for adjusting an order in response to later developments, such as evidence that the child has become unhappy or that contact arrangements are failing. Those matters should be addressed by a fresh application for reconsideration. Existing restrictions may remain justified by a parent’s past defiance of court orders, but their continuing impact should be monitored against the child’s welfare. A parent with parental responsibility remains entitled to information about the child’s progress and school reports where nothing in the orders prevents communication.

The mother sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Hamilton on 12 September 2001. The order permitted the father to remove their son permanently from the jurisdiction to live in Spain and regulated contact. It also imposed stringent prohibited steps restrictions on the mother’s communications and visits.

The mother complained about the removal decision, the operation of contact, the denial of telephone contact and the child’s continuing unhappiness in Spain. The central questions were whether there was any real prospect of success on an appeal and whether later developments should instead be addressed through a fresh application concerning the child’s welfare.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Ward dismissed the application for permission to appeal. The judge below had applied the correct test, and there was no real prospect of the Court of Appeal interfering with the orders permitting removal or regulating contact.
2. Proper appellate route. The mother’s complaints included later difficulties with contact and a letter indicating that the child was unhappy in Spain. Those developments might require the arrangements to be reconsidered, but an appeal was not the appropriate vehicle for making adjustments based on subsequent events. If the position continued, a fresh application should be determined before the end of July.
3. Prohibited steps order. The restrictions were understandable in light of the mother’s repeated defiance of court orders and the harassment identified in the earlier proceedings. Nevertheless, the court expressed concern about the child’s inability to telephone his mother and sister and about the possibility that the telephone was inaccessible to him. If those matters were established, the case would require a different assessment.
4. Parental information. The father was urged to permit the child to telephone his mother and sister, honour his promise to facilitate additional contact if the child wished it, and provide school reports. The court stated that, as a matter of English law, the mother was as fully entitled as the father to information about the child’s progress and copies of school reports, and that nothing in the orders prevented the school communicating with her.
5. Final order. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. A transcript was directed to be supplied to both parties at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 17 January 2002, dismissed the mother’s application for permission to appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division — On 12 September 2001, His Honour Judge Hamilton permitted the father to remove the child permanently to Spain and made contact and prohibited steps orders.