O (Children)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WILSON |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1488 |
| Date | 17 November 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B4/2005/2142 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1488
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
FAMILY DIVISION BOURNEMOUTH DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BONDSITTING AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Wilson
B4/2005/2142
THE APPLICANT FATHER APPEARED IN PERSON
THE RESPONDENTS (THE MOTHER AND THE CHILDREN BY THEIR GUARDIAN) DID NOT APPEAR AND WERE NOT REPRESENTED
Mr O (the father), who appears in person but supported by Mr Peterson (a McKenzie friend), applies today for permission to appeal against certain directions made by HHJ Bond, sitting as a High Court Judge of the Family Division, Bournemouth District Registry, on 9 September 2005. The directions were given in the context of a pending application by the father for an order for residence, or alternatively for shared residence, of two children, namely a girl M, who was born on 25 August 1991 and so is 14 years old and a boy A who was born on 8 October 1993 and so is 12 years old. Presently both children reside with the mother, who is the first respondent to the father's application. M and A have been made second and third respondents to the application, and are represented by Ms A Evans, a CAFCASS officer, as their guardian ad litem. It appears from the documents that, although clearly this is not a matter for this court, the father is seeking to discharge the appointment of Ms Evans as guardian ad litem of the children and indeed the appointment of Heppenstalls, Solicitors of New Milton, who by Mrs Pullan, act as solicitors for the children.
The parents, who were married, separated in 1996 and since then the children have continued to reside with the mother. Since 1996 there has been a mass of litigation between the parents referable to the children, including in the Court of Appeal and reaching even to Strasbourg. For reasons which are not for me to determine, the father has not had face to face contact with the children since October 1999. The protracted breakdown of his relationship with them must be very painful for him. Nevertheless the mother alleges that the father has become obsessed with fighting her through the courts and has entirely lost his sense of proportion and the ability to focus upon where the interests of the children now lie. Apparently she will be pleading for a judge somehow to end what she describes as the father's harassment of her new home with the children and her new husband. The father, for his part, will be denying all the allegations of obsessive and paranoid conduct and, insofar as (which currently appears to be the case) the children are now saying that they want nothing to do with him, he will be contending that such is the result of the mother's systematic alienation of them from him.
On any view the father has secured a significant initial victory, though not directly against the mother, in this court on 28 April 2005 and 22 June 2005. Mr O's case was one of three cases collected for the decision by the Court of Appeal upon the circumstances in which litigants in person should be allowed to be assisted by McKenzie friends. The judgment of the court, under the initials Re O, Re W-R and Re W, was handed down on 22 June and is now reported at [2005] 2 FCR 563. As did the two other appellants, the father succeeded in persuading this court to reverse the refusal of a circuit judge to allow him the assistance of a McKenzie friend. On the earlier date, being apparently the date when argument on the main point was received, the court granted Mr O permission to apply for orders for residence, he needing permission because of a subsisting bar under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 against his issuing such application without leave. In granting permission Thorpe LJ, who gave the leading judgment, indicated that there needed to be real progress with the application for residence or shared residence, which since September 2004 the father had been applying for leave to issue. The court directed that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial