W (Children), Re

Where an appeal concerning child contact has effectively been spent and the underlying case is in serious procedural muddle, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal and direct urgent case management before an experienced family judge. The appellate court should not attempt to resolve disputed factual and welfare issues where the necessary evidence and trial reasoning are unavailable. A challenged contact provision may be stayed temporarily so that the judge managing the case can decide whether it should remain in force or be discharged. The welfare of the children remains paramount.

The appeal, brought with permission from Wilson LJ, concerned contact arrangements for two young children. Mr Recorder Readings, sitting in Coventry County Court, had ordered four periods of contact, some supervised and some supported, followed by a report and review. He had also directed that the father undertake a parenting course.

The Recorder had heard substantial evidence but had made no judgment explaining the factual findings underlying the order. By the time of the appeal, the contact periods had taken place and further issues had arisen. The central questions were whether the supervision arrangements were adequate and whether paragraph 1(c) of the Recorder’s order should continue.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal had effectively been spent because the four contact periods had taken place. The case was nevertheless in a serious procedural muddle: substantial documents had not been considered by the appellate court and the Recorder had made no judgment despite hearing evidence and apparently making factual findings.
2. The Court of Appeal was not in a position to resolve the competing arguments about whether supervision by members of the father’s family was effective or contrary to the children’s interests. Those matters required determination by the judge managing the case on the evidence available to him.
3. The case should be placed urgently before HHJ Bellamy, the designated family judge for Coventry, who already knew the case. He should either take control of the proceedings or allocate them so that they could be dealt with swiftly. The parties were directed to file clear position statements at least 24 hours before the hearing.
4. Pending that urgent hearing, paragraph 1(c) of the Recorder’s order was stayed. HHJ Bellamy was to decide whether the stay should continue or be discharged, and could make directions concerning interim contact and the future conduct of the proceedings.

Sir Nicholas Wall gave the judgment. Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. Paragraph 1(c) of the Recorder’s order stayed pending an urgent hearing before HHJ Bellamy.
• Coventry County Court: Mr Recorder Readings made an order concerning supervised and supported contact, a parenting course and subsequent review.