G-A (Children)

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or where another compelling reason exists. The court must focus on the real issue raised by the order under challenge. In an application concerning leave to seek residence or contact orders, that issue was whether renewed involvement with the children had any realistic prospect of serving their interests. A litigant’s wider grievances about professionals, public authorities or earlier proceedings do not displace that focus. Where the proposed appeal discloses no realistic prospect of reversing the lower court’s decision and satisfies neither of the second-appeal criteria, permission must be refused.

The applicant, formerly a registered foster carer, sought leave to apply for residence and contact orders concerning three children previously placed with her by the local authority. The District Judge refused leave. Mr Justice Singer dismissed her appeal in the High Court, Family Division. She then applied in person for permission to bring a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The proposed appeal included complaints about the conduct of professionals and the fairness of the earlier hearing, but the central issue was whether contact with the children could realistically benefit them, particularly the two younger children. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the proposed second appeal met the threshold in rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

Application refused. Lord Justice Wilson refused permission for the proposed second appeal.

1. Under rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, permission for a second appeal could be given only if the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. The relevant question was whether there was any realistic possibility that renewed contact with the children would serve their interests. The applicant’s extensive complaints about social workers, an expert, the District Judge and the High Court judge had obscured that core issue. The court considered that her preoccupation with those grievances created a real risk that contact would destabilise the children’s lives.
3. The procedural history offered no arguable basis for a second appeal. The District Judge had refused leave under section 10 of the Children Act 1989; the High Court had dismissed the appeal; and the applicant had not identified a justifiable ground showing that the decisions below should be reversed.
4. Even allowing for the applicant’s concerns about the conduct of the earlier hearing and her status as a litigant in person, the proposed appeal disclosed neither an important point of principle or practice nor any other compelling reason. It also offered no realistic prospect of success. Permission was therefore refused. Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission for a second appeal refused.
2. High Court, Family Division: Mr Justice Singer dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Judge’s refusal of leave on 23 October 2007.
3. Family Proceedings Court: District Judge Crichton refused leave to apply for residence and contact orders on 3 April 2007.