British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> S-M & Anor (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 1580 (12 October 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1580.html
Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1580
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE BENNETT)
Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 12 October 2001 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION | ||
| S-M & BS (CHILDREN) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mrs S seeks permission to appeal orders made in the Family Division by Mr Justice Bennett on 23 August 2001 and Mrs Justice Hogg on 19 December 2000.
- The first order was a directions order only. It was made in the absence of Mrs S. The only party appearing before the judge was the official solicitor acting on behalf of her two children. The judge's directions order was manifestly well within the discretionary range given the unusual circumstances set out in his judgment. The second order was an order made by Mrs Justice Hogg in response to submissions and evidence from the official solicitor.
- The evidence included expert evidence from a Dr Swift. He was of the opinion that the little girls badly needed to know something of the existence of their father who had an application for a residence order and a contact order before the court. Mrs S did appear on that occasion, but only with the assistance of the tipstaff. The judge recognised the futility of making any order on the father's application, but she did make a family assistance order for a period of six monghs with the intention that the London Borough of Haringey would appoint a social worker to discuss with the children the reality of their paternity. She had the father's consent to the making of a family assistance order; she did not have the mother's consent. Accordingly she acted on the consent of the father and the consent of the official solicitor acting for the two children.
- Manifestly such an order was within the range of judicial discretion. The application for permission to appeal was not formally filed until 4 April. The family assistance order is now time-expired and the application for permission is, in those circumstances, manifestly misconceived. I must refuse it. Equally, the same must be said of the application to appeal the order of Mr Justice Bennett of 23 August and that is likewise refused.
- During the course of my judgment, a statement was handed in by Mrs S on her behalf which I have read. There is much in that statement that deals with events other than the events in the Family Division of the High Court and with events since 19 December 2000, the date of the last order in respect of which permission is sought.
- Accordingly, although I am grateful to Mrs S for taking the trouble to prepare the statement and put it before the court, strictly speaking it does not bear on my only task which is to evaluate applications for permission to appeal and see whether they pass the high test of disclosing a sufficient prospect of success to warrant further order. Nothing in the statement bears on that primary question. Accordingly, I confirm that the applications for permission are refused.