[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> B (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 2043 (13 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2043.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2043

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Wall)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Thursday 13 December 2001

Thursday 13 December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: The father applies for permission to appeal the order of Wall J, given on 16 July 2001, dismissing the father's appeal from two orders made by District Judge Ashton sitting in the Preston County Court on 25 January 2001, relating to his contact with his daughter J, otherwise L, who is now nearly 7 years of age.
2. There have been long and fraught disputes between the parents over the father's right to contact to his daughter. The Official Solicitor has been brought in. There has been very little, if any, progress. The matter rests at a stage of indirect contact which has been of very little benefit to J and very little satisfaction to the father.
3. The application for permission involves some brief scrutiny of the judgment delivered by Wall J on 16 July. It is a manifestly careful judgment extending to some 23 pages. On page 22 he reminded himself that his basic task was only to intervene with the decision of the district judge if the father had satisfied the court that the district judge was plainly wrong in what he did. The judge said (22G):

"I have to say, that I can see absolutely no basis upon which this appeal could succeed."

4. He gave the opinion that the only hope of progress was to follow the recommendations of Dr Banks but those recommendations were built into the very orders that the father challenged. The judge explained that, as the High Court liaison judge for the Northern Circuit, he had particular responsibility to investigate any allegations of impropriety or malpractice. Part of The father's case was that he was the victim of a conspiracy brought against him, as a black man, by the mother, as a white woman in collaboration with all the professionals in the case. The judge said that he could see absolutely no evidence of any malpractice. He went on to suggest - and perhaps the suggestion was not acceptable to the father - that the problem lay in the father's attitudes, and the judge suggested that he should examine whether in his own attitudes lay the seeds of all the dispute. The judge was critical of the father, saying that through the intemperate letters he had written latterly he had prevented progress in the relationship with his daughter. He concluded by saying that the order of the district judge was entirely right.
5. As I have pointed out, since there has already been an appeal to a High Court judge, and since that High Court judge has made a decision on the appeal, no appeal may be made to this court unless there is demonstrated some important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason. That is a very high test, and not easy for any applicant to satisfy. I have to say that there is nothing within these papers that has given me the least impression of any important point of principle or practice or any other compelling reason. I know that the father submits that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights enable him to leap the barrier of section 55, but there has been festally been full observation of his Article 6 rights and the judge has found there is no evidence of any breach of his Article 14 rights.
6. Although I have every sympathy for the father in what is always an intensely frustrating situation, nonetheless there is nothing that I can do to intervene. My powers are limited by section 55 and they drive me to dismiss this application.
ORDER: Application refused