C (Children), Re

In children-contact proceedings, permission to appeal may properly be refused where the lower court has fixed an imminent review and is better placed to reconsider the family circumstances. Appellate intervention should not cause delay where the likely result would be dismissal or remittal. In a contact impasse, the court should consider professional assistance, mediation, family therapy or a family assistance order, while recognising the limits of Cafcass’s powers. The lower court should take a robust and interventionist approach to identifying and overcoming the causes of failed contact.

The father of two young girls sought permission to appeal against an order made by Her Honour Judge Williams in Kingston upon Thames County Court on 4 March 2005. The order refused psychiatric assessment of one child and provided for staying, visiting and holiday contact, subject to the child not being forced to attend against her wishes. It also included recitals concerning supervision and flexible arrangements.

The father complained that the order was too vague to permit effective holiday planning and that one daughter had ceased attending contact. The county court had listed a review for 4 July 2005 and had identified family mediation and a family assistance order as possible ways forward. The central issue was whether appellate intervention was justified before that review.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal considered that the county court should reconsider the matter at its scheduled review rather than allowing an appeal which would cause delay and was likely either to be dismissed or remitted.
2. Approach to the contact impasse. The difficulty was not appropriately resolved by further immediate appellate intervention. The family required proper professional help to investigate why one child resisted contact while her sister attended willingly, and to assist in overcoming the problem.
3. Options for the county court. The judge was directed to give due consideration to the options identified in her earlier judgment, including family mediation and a family assistance order. Mediation required co-operation. A family assistance order could help, but Cafcass could principally befriend and advise rather than control the parties. Longer-term professional advice, family therapy or another suitable service might therefore be more appropriate.
4. Case management. The county court should act robustly and interventionally, taking grip of the case and addressing practical arrangements for school holidays, Christmas, half terms and Easter. The Court of Appeal’s views were supplied by transcript, but the weight to be given to them remained for the county court judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was dismissed: [2005] EWCA Civ 713.
• Kingston upon Thames County Court: Her Honour Judge Williams made the contact order on 4 March 2005 and listed a review for 4 July 2005.