[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 [2002] EWCA Civ 1507 (11 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1507.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1507

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LINCOLN COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER MAW)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Friday, 11 October 2002

1. MR JUSTICE BODEY: This is an application by a grandmother for permission to appeal against an order of Mr Recorder Maw given in the Lincoln County Court on 31 May 2002. By that order her application for contact to her grandchildren, a grandson born on 30 October 1994, a granddaughter born on 13 August 1996 and a younger grandson born on 26 November 1998, was refused.
2. Before the court can grant permission to appeal, it has to consider that the appeal would have a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why it should be heard.
3. I have read the papers and I have listened to the grandmother this afternoon supporting her Skeleton Argument which, in two and a half very clear and succinct pages, sets out her very strong feelings in this matter very vividly to me.
4. The grandmother's difficulty is that these cases are almost uniquely matters for the judge, who sees the witnesses and hears the case and absorbs it as it unfolds in front of him. For an appeal to be mounted, there has to be some way in which one can say that he applied the law in a way that was plainly wrong, or that he took into account some matter which he should have left out of account, or failed to take into account some matter which he ought to have taken into account or otherwise exercised his discretion wrongly.
5. As I say, I have carefully read the decision and, sadly for the grandmother, the Judge came down very firmly against her. He said that:

"[She has] made a formal application  . . .  for contact to resume. I have quoted earlier in this judgment from her application and what she said in her application clearly illustrates her deeply held views that [the parents of the children] are unfit parents and that there were matters well worthy of investigation by social services and other child protection authorities. It is abundantly clear from everything I have heard that [the grandmother] not only persists in that belief when all the objective evidence is to the contrary, but is reinforced in her belief, continues to hold those beliefs and as far as I can see will, if she is permitted to do so, continue her campaign to have some sort of adverse official findings made against [the parents of the children]. All the evidence shows that [the grandmother] and her daughter [the children's aunt] have made repeated and in my view unfounded allegations which have necessarily been investigated by the official authorities."

6. The learned Judge then went on to make a number of further findings of fact broadly unfavourable to the grandmother, and said that in his judgment she had a

" . . .  feud or campaign against her son and daughter-in-law [the children's parents] . . .  such that it obliterates any of the finer points of feeling that she may have for her grandchildren and in my view, if contact is to continue, this could only be potentially damaging to the children and indeed the whole family".

7. He referred to her being bombastic and aggressive in cross-examination and point-blank refusing to comment on matters. He said:

"The court got an overwhelming sense and feeling of her intense hatred and contempt for her son and daughter-in-law. This is unfortunate and sad and bizarre".

8. He went on to say that he found the parents to be "much more reasonable people" when giving their evidence.
9. On the question of whether or not there should be a further CAFCASS report, the Judge said there was nothing which he would learn from it which he did not already have from the professional witnesses whom he had heard, Mr Brammer, Mrs Wilson and Mrs Jenkins. He said that such a report would in his view only prolong the agony and clearly would not be in the interests of the children.
10. He went through the "welfare checklist", as required by the Children Act 1989, on the basis that the children's welfare was the court's paramount consideration, and in that respect one cannot fault the way in which he dealt with that process.
11. In deference to the grandmother's feelings, I do not propose to read any more from this judgment, which is there to be seen; but it is quite clear that the learned Judge took very strongly against her. Sadly, she does not accept it and comes to this court seeking to show cause why she should have permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
12. I appreciate her strong feelings in this matter as grandmother, but there is no way at all that I can hold that there is any real prospect of success in any such appeal against such findings, which were for the Judge to make. In those circumstances, the grandmother's application is dismissed.
ORDER: Application refused