F (A Child), Re

Appellate restraint does not prevent intervention where a first-instance judgment gives no sufficient explanation for rejecting a materially advanced and practical contact proposal. Reasons must address important oral submissions and realistic options, particularly where a lengthy delay may have caused the detail of the hearing to fade. The court recognised the welfare principle that young children should have direct contact with a parent unless such contact is plainly incompatible with welfare. The appeal was allowed and remitted for a fresh hearing before another judge, with related applications reconsidered in light of the contact decision.

HHJ Lea, sitting in Leicester County Court, made a supervision order for A to live with his mother and refused the father’s applications for direct contact, parental responsibility and a hyphenated surname. The order followed a submissions-only hearing on 25 November 2011, but judgment was delivered nearly six months later and largely adopted the guardian’s written report. On appeal, the central issue was whether the reasons adequately addressed the practical proposal that contact could occur during A’s visits to his paternal grandmother and sibling in Leicester, with suitable supervision.

Disposition

The appeal was allowed. The applications were remitted to Leicester County Court for a prioritised rehearing before another judge. The parties could file updating statements and, if necessary, updated reports.

Adequacy of reasons

1. The court recognised that appellate courts should be slow to intervene and acknowledged the pressures facing county court judges. Nevertheless, a judgment must explain why a litigant has lost and must enable effective consideration of an appeal.
2. The judge’s brief judgment adopted the guardian’s written report without engaging with important nuances in the oral submissions. It did not sufficiently explain why the most practical and least difficult proposal had not been evaluated and rejected.
3. The proposal involved contact when A was brought to see his paternal grandmother and sibling in Leicester, with supervision by the grandmother and a professional if appropriate. The court considered that the logistical difficulties would thereby have substantially receded. The remitted hearing was directed particularly to examine why that arrangement would not be practically possible.
4. The court referred to the principle that young children should have direct contact with a parent unless direct contact is plainly incompatible with welfare. The judge was required to explain why even a limited, properly managed and supervised regime could not be adopted, including any stresses imposed on the mother.

Related applications

The applications for parental responsibility and the change of surname were to be reconsidered in light of the decision on direct contact. The question whether the order should be set aside in totality was left for discussion at the Bar, with a further ruling if necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 8 November 2012, allowed the appeal and remitted the applications for a prioritised rehearing before another judge.
2. Leicester County Court — On 25 November 2011, HHJ Lea made a supervision order for A to live with his mother and refused the father’s applications for direct contact, parental responsibility and a hyphenated surname.