W (children), Re

Where an applicant for permission to appeal is absent without explanation, the court should balance the need for prompt resolution, particularly in sensitive child proceedings, against the fairness of determining a substantial challenge without the applicant present. Where an adverse decision on the papers may provoke an application to set it aside, one further opportunity to attend may be appropriate, coupled with a clear warning that further delay is unlikely to be accepted. Reporting restrictions may continue where the case is sensitive and publication could identify the whereabouts of the children’s placement.

The mother of three children applied to Bracewell J to discharge a care order. That application was refused, and orders were made freeing the children for adoption. She then sought permission to appeal a series of orders. At the Court of Appeal hearing she did not attend and was unrepresented. No explanation for her absence was available, and attempts to contact her had failed. The court had to decide whether to determine her challenge on the papers or adjourn it to give her a further opportunity to attend. It also considered whether first-instance reporting restrictions should continue.

1. Adjournment. The application was not determined. The court recognised the children’s and prospective adopters’ interest in an early resolution, and the stress caused by further delay. However, the mother had advanced a long and vigorous challenge to the orders below. If the court decided the matter on the papers and reached a conclusion adverse to her, there was a substantial risk that she would apply to set the judgment aside. In those circumstances, fairness required one further opportunity for her to attend.
2. The application was adjourned to 12 January 2006 at 2.00 pm. A transcript of the judgment was to be prepared at public expense and supplied to the mother and the local authority. The mother was to be notified of the revised hearing, and was warned that a further adjournment was unlikely to be granted.
3. Reporting restrictions. Given the sensitivity of the case, the mother’s apparent knowledge of the children’s placement, and her attitude towards it, the existing reporting restrictions were continued. Any report of the judge’s observations was to be made under initials only.
4. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was adjourned after the mother failed to attend. Reporting restrictions were continued and no order for costs was made.
2. High Court of Justice, Family Division: Bracewell J refused the mother’s application to discharge the care order and made orders freeing the children for adoption.