[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 >> W (A Child), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 278 (27 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/278.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 278

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Corrie)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Wednesday 27 February 2002

27 Wednesday February 2002

1. THE PRESIDENT: I am going to give a very short judgment in which we decide not to give permission to appeal, although we would in other circumstances have been disposed to grant permission to appeal on the issue as to whether or not the father should be obliged to provide a written report to the mother of his child, the mother being in hospital.
2. The background to this case, where the mother killed the father's younger child, inevitably raises deep emotions and sensitivities, and the application to appeal the order made by the judge, His Honour Judge Corrie, on 20 November 2001, which in ordinary circumstances would have been unappealable, may just have a real point to it. It is quite clear that he had complete discretion whether to grant an adjournment or not. He would in ordinary circumstances have complete discretion as to whether he made an order on directions on written evidence or after hearing oral evidence. But in this case, with these particular sensitivities, to order this father to write to the mother giving a progress report on their child six times a year does look to be something that could properly be reviewed by the Court of Appeal. However, Mr Baker (representing the mother) who understands very well the sensitivities raised by Miss Brown (representing the father) has told us that the case has been listed for 17 May and suggested that this is a matter that could be looked at again, perhaps more sensitively than it was before, by the trial judge.
3. I would hope that the parties, with the assistance of their very experienced legal teams, would be able to find an alternative method of requiring the father, quite properly, to give progress reports without requiring him to do so directly to the mother. One possibility would be that reports should be written to the maternal grandmother and given to her for onwards transmission to the mother. That is a way, but not necessarily the only way, and of course the trial judge must have complete discretion as to how he or she decides to deal with this point. But I do think a little lateral thinking in this case would probably be sensible, and I would hope that the parties (and I am very heartened by what Mr Baker says) could settle this themselves in a way that did not put the father, who is the sole carer of his son and, very importantly, the sole carer of the mother's son, under additional pressure on top of the pressure that he has in caring for this child for whom he has unexpectedly taken responsibility. I think it right that he should have some obligations: I am not certain, by any means, that it is right that it should be done the way the judge said.
4. So for those reasons, because the parties' legal advisors are prepared to consider the matter and Mr Baker will consult his lay client, it seems to me that it would be inappropriate for this appeal to go ahead. I therefore would refuse permission.
5. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: I agree.
ORDER: Permission to appeal refused. Public funding assessment for both parties.
6. (Order not part of approved judgment)