I (Children)

On an interlocutory application for permission to appeal in children proceedings, the Court of Appeal adjourned the application for an oral hearing on notice. Important concerns required further examination, including the refusal of an adjournment and whether sufficient regard had been given to the children’s wishes and feelings. The court also stayed the order below and directed steps to secure effective publicly funded representation. The application for permission, and therefore any appeal, was not finally determined.

The father challenged an order made by Her Honour Judge Pearce in the Luton County Court on 7 May 2002. His request for an adjournment, supported by a medical certificate, had not resulted in a substantial postponement. In his absence, the court allowed the mother to move with the children from the Letchworth area to the Cambridge area and reduced his contact from three weekends in four to alternate weekends.

The father sought permission to appeal. The respondent mother was not represented. The central issues identified for further consideration were whether the refusal of an adjournment fell within the judge’s discretion and whether sufficient regard had been given to the children’s wishes and feelings.

Interim appellate directions

Lord Justice Thorpe did not determine the application for permission to appeal. He adjourned it for an oral hearing on notice, with an appeal to follow if permission were granted.

1. Adjournment. The importance of the issues required examination of whether the refusal of the father’s adjournment request fell within the wide ambit of the judge’s discretion. The judgment did not determine that issue.
2. Children’s welfare. The welfare officer’s report indicated that the children were upset by the proposed move. Further material suggested that they were deeply attached to the existing arrangements. The court therefore required further exploration of whether sufficient regard had been paid to their wishes and feelings. This was identified as a concern, rather than determined as an established error.
3. Representation and expedition. The adjourned permission application was effectively the creation of an appeal requiring the father to be represented at public expense. The court directed that the funding difficulty be resolved urgently so that solicitors and counsel could prepare properly.
4. Interim protection. The order made by the county court was stayed pending the forthcoming hearing. The judgment was ordered to be expedited and transcribed, partly because delay might harm the children and partly because an earlier fixture had become available.

The application was listed for 25 June 2002. No final determination of permission or of the underlying appeal was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2002] EWCA Civ 890: the father’s application for permission to appeal was adjourned for an oral hearing on notice, with appeal to follow if permission was granted. The county court order was stayed pending that hearing.
• Luton County Court, 7 May 2002: Her Honour Judge Pearce allowed the mother’s applications, permitting relocation and reducing the father’s contact.