LTF v LMF

Where a Children Act 1989 section 91(14) order restricts further applications, permission should be granted only where an arguable case justifies revisiting the restriction or the underlying child-arrangements issue. The court must consider whether renewed proceedings would serve a useful welfare purpose or undermine the breathing space the order was intended to provide. A flawed lower-court decision is not necessarily set aside where the wider evidence independently shows that further proceedings should not yet occur. In entrenched contact disputes, beneficial contact may require both a change in the parent’s attitude and proactive professional intervention. The court may give prospective guidance, although such guidance is obiter, including consideration of specialist representation and continuing judicial responsibility.

The father of four children sought permission to appeal against HH Judge Ryland’s refusal to permit an application concerning the implementation or review of indirect-contact arrangements. The arrangements had been made by HH Judge Walford, who had granted the mother residence, ordered indirect contact, and imposed a two-year restriction under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, expiring on 24 November 2006.

Judge Ryland had relied partly on two procedural errors: he misunderstood an earlier order as granting permission to appeal and criticised an application made without notice, although the order required an ex parte application initially. The central issue was whether those errors required permission to appeal when the children’s current views, the continuing family circumstances, and the purpose of the section 91(14) restriction indicated that further proceedings before November would not be beneficial.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against Judge Ryland’s order. Lord Justice Wall gave the substantive judgment; Lord Justice Wilson and Lady Justice Hallett agreed.
2. Judge Ryland had made two material errors. He wrongly treated an earlier direction as permission to appeal and wrongly criticised the father’s ex parte application. Those errors plainly influenced his thinking and made the decision unsatisfactory.
3. Nevertheless, the errors did not justify reopening the matter. The continuing purpose of the section 91(14) order was to provide a period of peace and stability. The children remained in seriously overcrowded accommodation, continued to express a wish not to resume direct contact, and were reported by the guardian to regard the restriction as protective. There was no arguable case for permitting renewed proceedings before November 2006.
4. The court distinguished the question of procedural error from the wider welfare assessment. The father needed to recognise the children as individuals, listen to them, and address his authoritarian and confrontational behaviour. The children’s relationship with him was unlikely to improve while the housing and parental-conflict problems continued.
5. Wall LJ then gave prospective guidance, expressly acknowledging that it was unnecessary to dispose of the permission application. In an intractable contact dispute, expert identification of the problem is different from implementing a programme capable of restoring contact. If proceedings were renewed, a full judge of the Family Division should retain responsibility, and serious consideration should be given to representation by NYAS, which could provide legal and social-work involvement. Any future contact would depend critically on the father’s willingness to change his attitude and cooperate with professional intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against Judge Ryland’s refusal was refused. The court also gave prospective, non-dispositive guidance concerning any application after the section 91(14) order expired.
• Family Division at first instance: HH Judge Walford made the underlying residence and indirect-contact orders and imposed the two-year section 91(14) restriction on 24 November 2004. HH Judge Ryland later refused permission to make an application to review those arrangements on 15 February 2006.