COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LEEDS COUNTY COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUNT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
B (A child) |
____________________
Hearing date : 7th July 2006
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Wall :
I should perhaps add that when reserving judgment, I invited Mr. Bradford to send me copies of the various Welfare/CAFCASS reports, of which he was critical. He has not done so.
The history of the case contains fraudulent applications for court orders and public funding of the mother's advocates; the concealment of / failure to obtain key evidence by the mother and officers of the court; contempt of court by officers of the court; wilful neglect to public duty; perversion of the course of justice….. Even when I made a specific order application for a review of the misconduct / criminal conduct of named officers of the court, "Judge" Hunt did not even both referring to such serious matters in his ruling – presumably because he did not even both considering them" (my emphases).
My understanding is that this report was ordered to assist the court only in addressing whether it would be appropriate to give Mr. Bradford leave to apply for a variation in the existing order. I consider that contact has gone well and that there has been nothing done or said that should not have been. Consequently, it would be right to allow a review of the current arrangements. Whilst not invited to express a view on whether contact could safely be extended now, this conclusion already implies that I think it could be, without significant risk to K.
I think until he (Mr. Bradford) accepts that K will continue to live with (his mother) He (Mr Bradford) will see any significant increase as no more than another step towards K's living with him permanently, and K should not have to suffer the pressures that this will cause.
The CFR was, however, in favour of K having a holiday with his mother in Mauritius.
Discussion