N (Children)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMrs Justice Black
Judgment Date29 January 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] EWCA Civ 113
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket NumberCase No: B4/2007/2359
Date29 January 2008

[2008] EWCA Civ 113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM STOKE-ON-TRENT COUNTY COURT

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE ORRELL)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mrs Justice Black

Case No: B4/2007/2359

In The Matter of N (children)

The Appellant Appeared in Person

The Respondent Did Not Appear and was not Represented

Mrs Justice Black
1

The application that I have before me is an application by Mr N (who I hope will forgive me for calling him “the father”) for permission to appeal against an order made by HHJ Orrell on 26 September 2007. I have already explained to Mr N the course that I am going to take today, which does not involve me in resolving this permission application. I have also explained that I intend to give a short judgment because I have had the benefit of reading the papers in this case and it may help the court that next considers the matter if they can read my summary of what I have gleaned from the papers so far.

2

The litigation concerns two children of Mr N's. They are K who was born on 18 June 1995, so is twelve years old; and J who was born on 8 October 1998 and is nine years old. They live with their mother, by virtue of a residence order which was made in February 2005. There has been continuing difficulty over contact for the father with the children and that has continued to be the subject of litigation right up to the present day. In June 2007 HHJ Orrell directed that there should be no contact between the father and the children except as directed by the children's guardian, who by then was NYAS. The order appears in the bundle at B140 and it reads as follows:

“1. There shall be no contact direct or indirect between the 2nd and 3rd Respondent children and the Applicant father except as directed by the Children's guardian who shall decide where, when and in what manner any such contact shall take place.

2

There shall be no further hearing on the Father's application for shared residence without a report from Mr Jones.

3

N.Y.A.S shall by 4:00pm on 21st September 2007, file and serve the report of Alan Jones.”

The remaining provisions concern administration, including that the matter should be re-listed before HHJ Orrell on 26 September with a time estimate of a day.

3

NYAS had provided a short interim report for the June hearing, warning about the effect that they felt that litigation was having on K and the possible effect that it may be having on J, and advising that the father needed to work more collaboratively so that proceedings could move in a way that met the children's needs. The judge explained in the judgment of September 2007 why he made the June order. It was, he said, to give the children a breathing space so that they did not feel oppressed by contact taking place during difficult and protracted litigation, so that they would then be in a better position to reconsider contact which could be reintroduced gradually between June and September. So, there was going to be the hearing in September whatever happened and the judge hoped that some contact would be taking place by then.

4

On 17 August 2007, the father applied for various orders and directions to be made in the September hearing. Amongst them were these: first of all, that HHJ Orrell had made quite a lot of directions on 20 April 2007 (that order can be found at B123 in the bundle) and the father wanted that order enforced. In particular, he wanted CAFCASS to disclose a copy of the risk assessment that they had made in January 2005 and May 2006, and other documentation emanating from CAFCASS with regard to 2006. He also wanted disclosure of certain information by NYAS. Secondly, he wanted the NYAS guardian to be made to act independently of the mother because he, the father thought that Mr Jones, the guardian, was colluding with the mother. Thirdly, he wanted social service to file reports that they had prepared and he particularly wanted these to include the detail of the full history of what he saw as domestic violence in the family. Fourthly, he wanted to be able to call at court a significant list of witnesses. They would include solicitors, CAFCASS staff, a social services manager, a head teacher and Mr Jones, the NYAS guardian. He wanted to cross-examine them about various matters. Fifthly, he wanted a direction for a fact finding hearing to take place without delay. I have asked him today what the nature of the facts would be that he would want the court to find and he has explained to me that they would be in the nature of domestic violence, of the type of psychological abuse by the children's mother against him and the children, and would also include findings that she had been in breach of court orders, including that she had threatened to withhold contact with the children from him. Sixthly,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd v Thomson
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Justiciary
    • 12 Marzo 2009
    ...reviewed by presenting a petition to the nobile officium of the High Court of Justiciary. Cases referred to: A (A Child) (Re)UNKFLRUNK [2008] EWCA Civ 113; [2009] 1 FLR 1; [2008] Fam Law 1189 Advocate (HM) v AirsSC 1975 JC 64; 1975 SLT 177 Advocate (HM) v Caledonian Newspapers LtdUNK 1995 S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT