B (Children), Re

In family proceedings, trial judges have a particularly broad discretion when managing contact disputes and committal applications. An order directing a short period of observed and assessed contact may be a legitimate interlocutory case-management decision, enabling the court to evaluate changed circumstances and the parent’s cooperation. An appellate court will not interfere where the order falls within the judge’s discretionary band and the challenge has no realistic prospect of success. Parties are entitled to a fair trial under Article 6, but that right does not justify frustrating the investigation and determination of the children’s welfare.

The applicant mother appealed, out of time, against a suspended 28-day committal order made by His Honour Judge Corrie in the Northampton County Court. The committal followed her repeated failure to comply with contact orders concerning her two children and Mr W, who had acted as a father figure to the older child.

The judge had directed one further period of supervised contact at a CAFCASS office, followed by an addendum report addressing the older child’s wishes and other changed circumstances. A later order stayed the committal application while the mother sought to challenge the contact order. The central issue was whether the order of 19 November 2001 disclosed an appealable error and whether time should be extended.

1. Application dismissed. The application for an extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal was hopeless and had no realistic prospect of success.
2. Family proceedings of this kind require substantial deference to the experienced judge at first instance. The discretion available on applications concerning contact and enforcement is particularly broad.
3. The order made by His Honour Judge Corrie was essentially an interlocutory case-management decision. It recognised that the mother was entitled to a re-evaluation in light of changed circumstances and the children’s development. The direction for one limited period of supervised contact was intended principally for observation and assessment, with the court welfare officer preparing a further report.
4. The order properly placed responsibility on the mother to cooperate in the litigation process. The judge was entitled to give her an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility, moderation and cooperation before implementing the custodial sentence. The failure to consider the children separately was not an appealable error, since the point had not been raised below and the judge had plainly been aware of their different ages and circumstances.
5. The mother’s continuing defiance could not be condoned. Parties have Article 6 rights to a fair trial, which includes proper investigation and determination, but those rights do not permit a party to frustrate the process. It was also unfortunate that the application had delayed the proceedings for nearly five months, potentially to the children’s disadvantage.
6. The court observed that it was not too late for the mother to repent and cooperate, but this did not alter the dismissal of the application.

• Northampton County Court: His Honour Judge Corrie made a suspended 28-day committal order on 19 November 2001 and directed a further period of supervised contact and assessment. Judge Crawford later stayed the committal application to allow the mother to seek appellate relief.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application to extend time and challenge the order of 19 November 2001 was dismissed.