J-S (a Child), Re

Permission to appeal should be granted where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success, meaning that its chances are not fanciful. In determining contact arrangements, the court must weigh the benefit to the child of successful contact against any harm arising from its continuation or renewal. Direct contact should be denied only where there is a cogent reason for doing so. Parental responsibility is principally a matter of status. It does not generally confer a right to control the other parent’s life, and a desire for such control may be insufficient to justify refusing an order.

The father applied for permission to appeal against orders made by His Honour Judge Lynch in the Liverpool County Court. The judge had stopped direct contact between the father and his three-year-old son, replacing it with indirect contact, and had refused the father’s application for a parental responsibility order.

The proposed appeal concerned the weight given to the benefit of contact which had been working successfully, the alleged harm caused by the father’s conduct, the application of the principle in Re H (Minors)(Access) [1992] 1 FLR 148, and whether the father’s wish to control aspects of the mother’s life justified refusing parental responsibility.

1. Permission to appeal was granted. A real prospect of success means that the chances of success are not fanciful. The father had a proper argument that the lower court had failed to give sufficient weight to the benefit to the child of successfully enjoyed direct contact.

2. The proposed appeal raised a substantial question whether the alleged emotional behaviour and renewed complaints to Social Services constituted sufficient harm to justify stopping direct contact. The court indicated that the benefit of contact and any harm from its continuation had to be examined together. The relevant question was whether there was a cogent reason for denying contact which was working well.

3. The proposed appeal also raised the proper application of the principle referred to in Re H (Minors)(Access) [1992] 1 FLR 148.

4. Parental responsibility was described as more a matter of status than a matter of conferring a right on a parent. The question for the appeal was whether, in the circumstances, the father’s desire to control the mother’s life was sufficient reason to refuse a parental responsibility order.

5. The matter was directed to be heard before three judges, preferably including a Family Division judge. The video held at the Liverpool County Court was to be sought for consideration.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted against orders made by His Honour Judge Lynch in the Liverpool County Court on 15 March 2002. Directions were given for the appeal hearing.