M v M (Allocation of Judge)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1993 |
| Date | 1993 |
| Year | 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
WOOLF AND BUTLER-SLOSS, L JJ
Practice – Judge hearing application relating to children – expressing views about father's violently dogmatic views on homosexuality and abortion – granting care and control of children to mother – father subsequently applying for residence order – applying for hearing to be before another Judge – alleging moral prejudice – whether application should be granted – desirability of same Judge hearing subsequent applications in family cases.
In the course of divorce proceedings both parents sought custody of the three children of the family. In June 1991 Her Honour Judge Norrie ordered that the mother should have care and control of the children. In the course of her judgment, the Judge stated that the father's violent disapproval of homosexuality was an example of his dogmatic views. The Judge also found that the father was diametrically opposed to women's rights to choose about matters concerning their own bodies and, in particular, abortion. The father did not appeal against the Judge's decision.
In February 1992 the father applied for a residence order under the Children Act 1989. The mother applied to vary the father's access. The father applied to His Honour Judge Hammerton that the proceedings should not be heard by Judge Norrie because the comments in her judgment in June 1991 were suggestive of moral prejudice in favour of the mother and against the father. Judge Hammerton refused the application and ordered that the hearing should be heard before Judge Norrie.
The father appealed.
Held – dismissing the appeal: It was impossible, on the basis of the observations referred to or on the judgment as a whole, to find any basis on which a person in the father's position could reasonably take the view that Judge Norrie was displaying an inappropriate attitude or one suggestive of a moral prejudice in favour of the mother and against the father. It was essential that the Judge should give a clear and full account of her assessment of a party. If a party displayed dogmatic attitudes, that could be a matter of relevance as to his being an appropriate carer of the children. The fact that a Judge was required to express firm views in favour of or against a particular parent did not disqualify that Judge from thereafter hearing subsequent applications relating to the same parties. It was important that the Judge who had the opportunity of forming a view after a lengthy hearing
should deal with subsequent applications where this was practical. In any event, at a subsequent hearing the views of the Judge at the first hearing as expressed in his judgment would form the basis of any subsequent applications. In family cases it was a positive advantage to have continuity of Judge.
AppealAppeal from His Honour Judge Hammerton sitting at Brighton county court.
Andrew Hockton for the father.
Alison Ball for the mother.
Susan Shackleford for the Official Solicitor.
LORD JUSTICE WOOLF.This is an appeal on behalf of the father against an order made on 6 August 1992 by His Honour Judge Hammerton sitting at the Brighton county court when the Judge had to consider an application for an order transferring the hearing of the proceedings to a Judge other than Her Honour Judge Norrie and His Honour Judge Hammerton refused that application.
The application was made in the course of proceedings concerning the care of three children, namely, a boy who was born on 12 June 1982 (who was a child of the mother from a previous marriage); a boy who was born on 11 August 1983, and a girl who was born on 21 October 1985, both of whom are children of the marriage of the father to the mother.
The parties were married on 13 November 1982 and are in the process of divorce. When the parties married they were older than is usually the case and both had been previously married.
The father made an application for the custody of the children and, in June 1990, he was granted interim care by the order of His Honour Judge Coles at the East Grinstead county court, the mother being granted extensive access. The full hearing took place before Her Honour Judge Norrie who, having considered the evidence, made an order on 24 June 1991 giving care and control of the children to the mother, with extensive access to the father. That judgment was never the subject of an appeal, and the fact that there was no appeal is perfectly understandable because, in my judgment, there would have been no prospect of an appeal succeeding.
On 12 February 1992 the father applied for a residence order under the Children Act 1989 and the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The mother applied within the divorce proceedings to vary the father's access and also to remove the children from school at East Grinstead where they were then attending, so that she could take them to York where she intended to reside. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Cb and Jb (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Case Conduct)
...Re[1996] 2 FCR 617; sub nom Re M and R (minors) (sexual abuse: expert evidence) [1996] 4 All ER 239, CA. M v M (allocation of judge) [1993] 1 FCR 781, S (care order: split hearing), Re[1996] 3 FCR 578. ApplicationCare proceedings were brought as a result of a child suffering non-accidental ......