B (A Child)

Judgment

Lord Justice Thorpe:

This is Mr B’s appeal from an order of HHJ Orrell of 10 December 2008. The judge himself gave permission for the appeal and the appellant’s notice is dated 26 January 2009.

This is a very sad case, in which there have been proceedings in relation to Mr B’s contact with his daughter, L, from her age of, approximately, four, through to her present age of 14. So there is a decade of litigation, and sadly the path has been a path of increasing difficulty and barrenness, so that from early days when Mr B enjoyed normal contact relationship with his daughter he has had to resign himself to a situation in which contact has dried up altogether and that, despite the investment of considerable resources within the county court, Mrs Jones came into the case from the beginning as CAFCASS officer and then, following an order made in 2007 by HHJ Pugsley, she became L’s section 9.5 guardian. Unfortunately, relations between Mrs Jones and Mr B have deteriorated as the frequency of his contact has diminished as his relationship with L has withered. But, although Mrs Jones has reached retirement age, she still works part-time and still provides guardian support for L, and it is perfectly evident to any outsider that there is a real value in that continuation provided that the relationship between child and guardian is one of mutual respect and confidence.

The case was before HHJ Orrell in May 2008 when he had to resolve difficulties over the funding of an expert, Mr Cheeseman, who had been brought into the case by earlier directions order; and, in reaching his decision, the judge also imposed on Mr B a section 91(14) order and a prohibited steps order which have still got some weeks to run because he gave them twelve months’ duration. That order Mr B brought to this court and his application was heard by my Lord, Wall LJ on 14 August 2008. My Lord refused permission to appeal the prohibited steps order for reasons that appear from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the transcribed judgment, and in paragraph 14 my Lord explained why he was refusing the permission application generally. But my Lord did express sympathy, which I am sure we all share, for Mr B’s position as a father who has seen contact to his daughter diminish and had to come to terms with the withering of the relationship.

My Lord drew attention to the possible aid that could be given were NYAS involved. So when the case returned to HHJ Orrell in the Derby County Court on 10 October, he