Re J (A Child)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WARD |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1478 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 02 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | B1/2002/1397 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1478
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Allweis)
Lord Justice Ward
B1/2002/1397
The Applicant Father appeared in person
The Respondent Mother did not appear and was not represented
Mr J appears today to seek permission to appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Allweis made on 19th June 2002, refusing his application for leave to apply for a contact order.
I do not know how Mr J comes across in the Manchester County Court, but here he has always conducted himself with a good sense of humour and a sense of perspective. He is a passionate but nonetheless patently devoted father, which is how the judges have, I think, always found him to be.
This application faces insuperable difficulties. Following his last appearance in this court, the contested proceedings between mother and father over the future of this little boy, J, now aged just seven, were resolved, it was hoped, by the order of Mr Recorder Murray made on 9th August 2001. Almost exceptionally (but nonetheless, I think, wisely) the recorder made an order for shared residence, giving all the psychological boost that might be implicit in that order to allow J to feel that he had a home with each of his parents. He made provisions (perhaps not as closely defined as, in retrospect, they might have been) for J to reside with his father on alternate weekends during school term time and the February and October half term periods, without defining what was to happen in the half terms. But he made the important order —important because it was made by consent —that both parties would not be entitled to make an application for a residence or contact order for two years unless the court gave leave.
Problems arose. First, the mother was dilatory in arranging for the boy's passport. She may not fully understand the position and I hope, if and when a copy of this judgment is drawn to her attention, that she will begin to understand and react with more sympathy to the fact that the nature of the father's job in the Post Office does demand that arrangements for holidays are set well in advance. He cannot chop and change dates at the drop of a hat, and it is, therefore, incumbent on her to endeavour to agree those dates well in advance. By the time of the hearing the passport problem had been resolved.
The second issue was actually agreeing half term dates. By the time of the hearing that had been resolved. Now Mr J tells me that he did not in fact enjoy his October half term contact at all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hashtroodi v Hancock
...authorities are no longer generally of any relevance once the CPR applies." 13 To similar effect, May LJ in Godwin v Swindon BC [2002] EWCA Civ 1478, [2002] 1 WLR 997 at para [42] said: "…it is not generally helpful to seek to interpret the Civil Procedure Rules by reference to the rules ......
-
T&L Sugars Ltd v Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd
...month period. In other words the problems created by the former rules and dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Godwin v Swindon BC [2002] EWCA Civ 1478; [2002] 1 WLR 997 and Anderton v Clwyd CC (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 933; [2002] 1 WLR 3174 that the defendant had to be deemed to be served ......