W (Children)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Ryder,Lord Justice Jackson |
| Judgment Date | 20 August 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 1488 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2013/0205 |
| Date | 20 August 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 1488
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM READING COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE OLIVER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Jackson
and
Lord Justice Ryder
Case No: B4/2013/0205
The Applicant Mother appeared in person
The Respondent Father did not appear and was not represented
Mr John Haina appeared from Cafcass but was not required to speak
(As Approved)
This is an appeal by JW, who is the mother of a child I shall call D, who was born on 21 November 2011. D's father is JC. He opposes the appeal but has absented himself from court today. He says in a communication with the court that he has lost faith in the family courts and asks that his written materials stand as his submissions on this appeal.
The order that is the subject of this appeal was made by HHJ Oliver in the Reading County Court on 4 January 2013. On that day the judge ordered that mother shall make the two children of the family available for contact once a week with father at a supported contact centre, developing into contact at father's home and then overnight staying contact and holiday contact. The judge also ordered that D's name be changed with the inclusion of his father's first forename, J, as one of his middle names.
At an oral permission hearing on 15 May 2013 I refused permission to mother to appeal the contact orders, refused her permission to appeal on the basis of bias, and granted her limited permission to appeal the order for the change of one of D's middle names on the basis the judge had not considered the principles in Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] 2 AC 308. I do not propose to rehearse the detailed bases upon which I refused permission, which can be found at [2013] EWCA Civ 735.
Turning then to the single issue before this court, the judge dealt with the question of D's name at paragraph 72–79 of his judgment. It ought to be understood that by far the greatest part of a judgment of some 113 paragraphs relates to residence and contact. These parties are so antagonistically opposed to each other that their disputes have continued to simmer and have been back to HHJ Oliver at least once since the order complained of. They will ruin the lives of their children if they do not stop litigating their own issues through their children.
Be that as it may, and despite the apparent failure of the judge's attempt to construct an ongoing meaningful relationship between father and his children, the issue of D's name remains in dispute. The judge's ruling on that point is as follows:
"It seems to me appropriate that [J] should be a middle given name, and therefore I order it. It seems to me I see no reason why that should not take place. As I say, it was agreed."
The context was this. At the time of D's birth the parents separated and on 21 November (that is, the day of his birth) mother sent a text to father:
"You have a son, born at 12.55pm, weighs 9 lbs 11 oz (which is a big size). He is very pink, hungry, doing well."
Father replied:
"Well done. I hope you are okay. Thank you. Can you send me a picture when you can. I would like to meet him as soon as possible. Hope [S] is okay and loves her little brother."
There were then two or three exchanges about D's name, including whether he should have a middle name, and, if so, what name. Father suggested his name, J, as one of D's middle names, and mother agreed. The text messages do not provide evidence of any coercion at the time the agreement was made. Subsequently mother changed her mind and submitted to HHJ Oliver that the circumstances of the agreement were an example of father's controlling behaviour. She submitted that she was within hours of a Caesarean section and was under pressure, and she added that her daughter would not have a similar additional name, and so there would no longer be parity between the children. That was her reasoning in the court below. The judge rejected her submission and evidence of pressure on the evidence that was put before him, and as he was entitled to do. He rejected the parity submission on the basis that the daughter could have an additional name if the parents wished it, or indeed if the child wished for one to be given. I make no comment about that question, as the issue of the daughter's welfare is not before this court.
The judge then made the order complained of, changing D's name to add J as a middle name as requested by father.
Dealing first of all with the issues of fact, this court has not given permission for them to be challenged, and there is no basis for such a challenge absent mother's submission to this court that, at the time of D's birth, father had given an undertaking to the court not to harass mother, which included the following: namely, that father "shall not communicate directly with the applicant by any means, including telephone, email, text message, letter or in person." It is perfectly plain that at the time of the text communication between the parents mother did not regard father to be in breach of that undertaking, and in any event she initiated the text communications herself. She tells this court that there was a specific permission recorded in the order of the court below relating to that undertaking, but there is no evidence of the same on any of the written materials provided to this court. Her submission that this evidences...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re W, F, C and D (minors)(Name changes disclosing gender reassignment and other matters)
...Re Q, Re A, Re B (change of name) [1999] 2 FLR 930 at 933F, applying Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] UKHL 18 (and see also Re W (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1488). See discussion in judgment in Re C and D below. 6 Masters generally in the last few years have had more experience of the process than......
-
PK v Mr and Mrs K
...from three particular cases – Dawson v. Wearmouth [1999] 1FLR 1167; Re W, Re A, Re B [1999] 2FLR 930 and Re W (Change of Name) [2013] EWCA Civ 1488. On any application, the child's welfare is paramount. Each case must be decided on its own facts with the welfare of the child as the paramoun......
-
Parental Responsibility
...PD 5A). Also, as to the position with parental responsibility and change of surname, see the comments of Ryder LJ in Re W (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1488 at [12]. (f) Registration of child’s name . Under section 2 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, a baby’s name must be registe......