S (Children)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE |
| Judgment Date | 11 September 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1429 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B1/2001/1561 |
| Date | 11 September 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 1429
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Connell)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Thorpe
B1/2001/1561
THE APPLICANT/FATHER appeared on his own behalf
THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented
This is an application brought by Dr M S for permission to appeal an order and judgment given in the Family Division by Connell J on 29th June 2001.
2.
The hearing before the judge was initiated by Dr S, who sought the variation of an order in relation to his contact with his two children made by a deputy judge, Mr Roderick Wood QC, sitting on 13th January 2000. In the interim Her Honour Judge Bevington had directed that a court welfare officer investigate the wishes and feelings of the two children to advise the judge who would hear Dr S's application. The court welfare officer duly performed that task and for her purposes did not see the children with their father but only saw them individually.
3.
At the outset before Connell J Dr S launched an application for an adjournment and an order for a much fuller and more comprehensive welfare officer's report. He relied upon a decision of Johnson J Re P [1996] 2 FCR 285. The judge perfectly properly in my opinion distinguished that case, whilst recognising that in the generality of cases a report should be comprehensive. He rightly distinguished this class of case where the direction to the court welfare officer was a limited direction for a specific purpose. That was a discretionary decision which is simply not open to challenge in this court.
4.
Dr S has also complained, and understandably complained, at the negativity of the outcome before Connell J. He has been striving to see his children for years since the breakdown of his marriage, and the courts have availed him nothing.
5.
Connell J said in the course of his judgment that he agreed with the welfare officer's assessment that if Dr S wants to create a relationship with his children, his only hope now is to withdraw from the route of litigation and embark upon the much more difficult course of trying to convince the children that he has changed his attitude towards them and that he is nothing but supportive and loving.
6.
The judge accordingly went on to reinforce that assessment by granting the mother's application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mionis v Democratic Press SA and Others
...per Sedley LJ in Douglas v Hello! (No 1) [2001] QB 967, at 1003. See further, London Regional Transport v The Mayor of London [2001] EWCA Civ. 1429; [2003] EMCR 4 at para 61. 64 The phrase "must have particular regard to" in section 12(4) does not indicate that the court should place extra ......