[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 >> J (A Child), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 189 (29 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/189.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 189

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE SINGER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday 29 January 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE : These are applications for permission to appeal orders made by Judge Pearlman on 25 October 2001, Judge Pearlman on 11 July 2001 and Singer J on 3 September 2001.
2. The applicant has made his application in writing and has subsequently written to the court asking for his application to be dealt with in his absence. He explains that he is a person with a disability and unable to attend the hearing.
3. The issue in the court below has been as to whether the applicant should have contact to his son, born on 17 December 1997. The impediment to any arrangement has been a prior conviction which, although dating back to November 1991 constitutes the applicant a schedule 1 offender. The disposal in the criminal court was intended to introduce the applicant to a course of voluntary psychotherapy. For reasons which it is unnecessary to investigate, the progress of that intended course has been feint and, in the orders which the applicant seeks to appeal, the judges have consistently taken the stance that, until he complies with the reasonable requirements for treatment, it would not be safe to initiate a regime of direct contact.
4. The principal judgment in the court below is the judgment of Singer J of 3 September. The judge clearly explains why he exercised his discretion against the father's application for contact and why he determined to dismiss it. Nothing in the papers which have subsequently been submitted to this court suggests to me that that was an erroneous exercise of discretion. I see no realistic prospect of success in this court were permission granted.
5. Accordingly these applications are refused.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.