Re E (A Child)

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. In child-contact proceedings, an appellate court will not interfere merely because a parent disagrees with the progression ordered. An arrangement for alternate-weekend staying contact may be a natural development from established contact, particularly where contact has progressed successfully and the lower court has considered the parent’s concerns.

The father applied for permission to appeal against a judgment of the Luton County Court dated 7 January 2002 concerning contact with his daughter. He contended that he had misunderstood the proposed arrangements and had not been given a sufficient opportunity to argue against fortnightly staying contact. The application was considered in the father’s absence. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.
2. The court considered the papers, the lower court’s judgment, the grounds of appeal and the father’s arguments. The father maintained that fortnightly contact would confuse and disrupt the child and that he had understood the proposal only after the judge had begun giving judgment.
3. The history of contact was material. Contact had developed from two hours every Saturday to six hours per week and then eight hours per week. A CAFCASS reporter had concluded that contact had gone very well, and staying contact was largely agreed in principle.
4. The judge was satisfied that the lower court had clearly had the father’s concerns in mind. Alternate-weekend staying contact was a frequently made order and represented a natural development from the contact already taking place. The possibility of increasing the arrangement to two nights at weekends could be considered later, depending on how the new arrangements worked.
5. The lower court’s conclusion could not be faulted on the material before the appellate court. A separate issue concerning the mother’s mobile telephone number did not provide a basis for permission to appeal, although the father could apply for further orders about that matter if necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal against the Luton County Court judgment of 7 January 2002 dismissed.