[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> H (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 1294 (16 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1294.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1294

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mrs Justice Bracewell)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday 16th July, 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is a very sad case in which Mr P comes for permission to appeal the judgment of Bracewell J given in the Family Division on 6th April 2001.
2. Mr P is the grandfather of twins, born on 21st May 1998 to his daughter. I need not recite the circumstances in which the twins came into care. However, throughout Mr P has fought for the responsibility to make a long-term home for the twins. His case was reviewed by the local authority and considered by the guardian ad litem. But when the case came before the Ipswich Family Proceedings Court on 29th November 2000 both the local authority and the guardian ad litem opposed the application by Mr P and his wife for a residence order. The Family Proceedings Court refused the application and granted the cross-application of the local authority for a care order with an underlying care plan for adoption.
3. Mr P appealed that decision and Bracewell J explained why she could not accept his criticisms. She pointed out that the care plan was for adoption, that a prospective adoptive family had been identified and that the adoption panel was to consider a match between the couple and the twins in May. Here we are now in July and the application for permission is quite simply hopeless, since it has no identifiable merit.
4. The bundle has been impeccably prepared by the Citizens Advice Bureau and they have also helped Mr P to prepare his skeleton argument. Their assistance is very much appreciated by me.
5. Everything in Mr P's skeleton argument I can fully understand as the expression of the feelings of a disappointed grandfather. However, the reality is that it was for the Justices to decide where the future of the twins lay on the application of the paramount consideration of their welfare. They reached a reasoned decision and Bracewell J complimented them on the care that they had devoted to the case, and particularly to the preparation of their written reasons. She inevitably refused the appeal before her that day, since in reality it had no foundation.
6. Equally, I must refuse this application for permission which is, quite simply, hopeless.
7. Mr P has expressed his intention of taking his case to the court in Strasbourg, and I have explained that my refusal of his application for permission exhausts his domestic remedies and accordingly clears the way for him to refer his case to the court in Strasbourg should that be his considered intention. Obviously I am not encouraging that course, since, as I have tried to explain, the responsibility for decision-making in this difficult field rests with the court of trial. The court of appeal, whether it be the single judge of the Family Division or a single judge of this court, has the limited but important function of reviewing the decision of the court of trial for error, misdirection or conclusion that could not be made out in the exercise of a proper discretion. But nothing in the papers before me suggests any semblance of error. Rather, it suggests a balanced discretionary decision on the evidence.
8. I have no hesitation at all in dismissing this application for permission.
ORDER: Applications for permission to appeal and an extension of time refused. (Order not part of approved judgment)