O (Children)

Permission to appeal should be granted unless the proposed appeal has no realistic prospect of success. In family proceedings, the welfare of the children remains paramount. The importance of maintaining a loving relationship with both parents does not require direct contact where the evidence shows that contact endangers welfare and termination would benefit the children. Clear findings of fact and carefully reasoned welfare conclusions will leave no realistic prospect of a successful appeal where the proposed grounds merely challenge matters already addressed.

The father sought permission to appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Platt dated 24 January 2002, following prolonged contact litigation concerning his three children. The judge had found physical assaults, inappropriate touching, persistent denigration and breaches of orders, and had concluded that direct contact should end. Permission had been refused below on 8 February 2002. The proposed grounds included refusal of a paediatric examination, alleged tainting of evidence, and breaches of Articles 6 and 8. The central issue was whether any ground had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Application refused. Mr Justice Sumner applied the permission threshold that an application should be granted only where the proposed appeal has a realistic prospect of success. On the papers and after hearing the applicant’s McKenzie Friend, he concluded that there was no such prospect.
2. The lower court had produced careful and concise judgments containing clear findings of fact and welfare conclusions. The proposed challenges did not provide a sufficient basis for appellate intervention. The judge’s refusal to order a specialist paediatric examination was properly reasoned: after more than a year it was unlikely to yield evidence supporting either side, would probably be neutral, and would subject the children to a further ordeal.
3. The court endorsed the welfare approach adopted below. A child’s relationship with both parents is an important starting point, and the court and each parent have duties to foster it. However, the welfare principle is paramount. Where a parent is unable to develop a beneficial relationship and contact is detrimental to the children’s overall development, welfare may require termination of direct contact. The father’s non-biological status did not alter that analysis.
4. The complaints concerning the evidence of Mr Kane, and the alleged breaches of Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention, disclosed no realistic ground of appeal. The lower judge had plainly considered the relevant fairness and rights issues.
5. Any future application concerning the children was directed to be placed before His Honour Judge Platt, with Mr Justice Sumner indicating that he might deal with it if Judge Platt were unable to do so.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 April 2002, Mr Justice Sumner refused the father’s application for permission to appeal.
2. Ilford County Court: His Honour Judge Platt gave judgment on 24 January 2002 and refused permission to appeal on 8 February 2002.