M (A Child)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Thorpe,Lord Justice Etherton,Mr Justice Henderson |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 446 |
| Date | 14 March 2012 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2011/0617 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 446
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT
(HER HONOUR JUDGE CARR QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Thorpe
Lord Justice Etherton
and
Mr Justice Henderson
Case No: B4/2011/0617
Ms Elizabeth Isaacs (instructed by Messrs Williams Bache and Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Father.
Mr David Hawkins (instructed by Yorkshire Family Law Associates) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother
Ms Shona Rogers (instructed by Cafcass) appeared on behalf of the child by his Guardian.
This is an appeal from the order of HHJ Carr QC sitting in the Sheffield County Court on 1 March 2011. The appeal is brought with permission of Black LJ given on 2 November 2011. The date for the hearing today, 14 March, was notified to all parties by letter from this court on 23 November 2011. So we sit nearly four months later and the preparation of this case for this hearing has been lamentable; lamentable on all sides in my opinion. We do not have a transcript of the judgment below. We have only a note, which we are told by Mr Hawkins, who represents the mother, was prepared by the guardian's solicitor. Ms Rogers, who represents the child, is unable to confirm that because her instructing solicitor is having what is apparently known as a "leave day". It was surely obvious to all the parties that, in the light of the issues to be determined by this court, a transcript of the proceedings in the court below on 1 March was absolutely essential. We have nothing, not even a note of what transpired on that day.
On the previous day HHJ Carr had sat to consider contact between E, who is nearly nine years of age, and his father who was the applicant for contact and parental responsibility orders. The judge had dealt with the case in May of the previous year and she had the advantage of a report from the guardian and the expert opinion of a psychologist Dr Lynch. So on the first day Dr Lynch gave her evidence and we are told that the father commenced his evidence. The judge was obviously preliminarily concluding that supervised contact, which had been on foot for some time, had to be maintained. There were practical difficulties because the supervision had been undertaken by CAFCASS for some months and they could not continue. The identification of an affordable alternative supervisor was undoubtedly difficult.
So the judge very sensibly adjourned to allow the parties to discuss the practicalities. She resumed on the following day, that is 1 March, and at some stage the father lost his self-control and, as the judge was to put it in the note of judgment that we have, ranted at the injustice of the system and at the performance of the guardian.
For the mother Mr Hawkins, who appears here today, was there below and he is the only person who is able to give us any information directly as to the dramatic events of the 1 March. Mr M was represented by counsel, Mr Paller and the guardian was represented by a solicitor, Mrs Alder. The father, having vented his disgust, applied to withdraw his applications. The judge refused that so the father walked out. It seems that Mr Paller pursued him but was not sufficiently swift in pursuit and he had cleared the building before Mr Paller could catch up with him.
So the judge then proceeded. As to what happened thereafter, I take the note of the judge's judgment. In the concluding three paragraphs she apparently said:
"I heard briefly from the guardian. She will inform [E] of what has happened. [Father] does not seek indirect contact or put forward proposals for supervised contact. I had not made up my mind about contact or about parental responsibility prior to him leaving Court, and I am not inclined to make an order.
The preamble can record what has happened and provide for indirect contact. [Mother] has parental responsibility and as a basic human right [the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M (A Child)
...order and on the understanding that father would make fresh applications to the court, remitted the matter to the county court ( [2012] EWCA Civ 446, Thorpe and Etherton LJJ and Henderson J). 5 On 22 March 2012 father issued applications for contact and parental responsibility. He was repre......
-
E v M (1st Respondent) Y (A Child by her guardian) (2nd Respondent)
...the court to dispense with the guidance, and no reasons were given for doing so; Re M (Section 91(14) Order) [2012] EWCA Civ 446, [2012] 2 FLR 758. 56 On this one issue I would allow E's appeal. I would direct that the application for a s 91(14) on behalf of the child should be remitted to......