F (Children) (Rev 1)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
- LORD JUSTICE RYDER
- LADY JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal case involves a dispute between the parents of two children, BF and CF, with the mother being granted residence and limited contact for the father. The father criticized the reliance on an old expert report and the exclusion of his input. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision and basing their judgment on procedural propriety and the adequacy of the s37 report.
Judgment
Lady Justice King :
This is an appeal arising out of private law proceedings between the appellant, (father) and the respondent (mother) in relation to their two children, BF who was born on the 11 th July 2000 (14) and CF who was born on the 2 nd June 2003 (11).
On 9 April 2014, having heard evidence over two days and given a reserved judgment, Her Honour Judge Black made a number of orders. The principal terms of her order were to grant a residence order in relation to both children to the mother; to order that there be no direct contact between the father and the children but that there be indirect contact. In addition the judge made an order pursuant to s.91(14) in order to preclude further applications to the court without leave until the children attain 18 years. The judge dismissed the father’s cross-applications for prohibited steps order, contact orders and a residence order in his favour.
The mother’s application for the removal of the father’s parental responsibility in respect of each of the children was refused; the judge made an order limiting the exercise of his parental responsibility by the father in the following way:
“Any school or education establishment, the boys GP and any agency which is contemplating providing Therapeutic Services with either BF or CF must be provided by the Mother with a copy of the judgment of HHJ Black dated 15 April 2014 and a copy of the order of HHJ Black dated 9 April 2014 and thus be advised that the Applicant father retains Parental Responsibility in respect of both BF and CF and therefore should receive copies of all written communication concerning the children sent to the Respondent Mother, but the Applicant Father cannot attempt to influence or be consulted about decisions regarding any aspect of the children’s education, health or welfare unless any such agency considers it to be in the interests of either boy to be so consulted or involved and the level of such consultation or involvement shall be at the sole discretion of that agency”
The father filed a notice of appeal on the 30 th April 2014. The accompanying grounds of appeal set out nine grounds attacking various aspects of the Judge’s management of the case. The matter came before Lord Justice McCombe on the 4 th August 2014, when he gave permission to appeal in relation to grounds 5 and 8 in the following terms:
Ground 5 stated :
“the judge was wrong to rely so highly on an untested expert report from four years ago when the fa