England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE CORRIE)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		23rd July 2008

Lord Justice Thorpe:

1. This is an appeal from the order of HHJ Corrie, who was sitting in the Northampton County Court on 6 May 2008. Throughout there were unusual exchanges between counsel and court, no doubt driven by the nature of the instructions that they were receiving from their respective clients. The judge heard evidence only from the CAFCASS officer, Ms Melanie Palmer. She was essentially telling the judge that the only child in the judge's focus, Jack, a 14 year-old boy, wanted to see his mother, needed to see his mother, but also needed to be protected from the environment, the mother's environment, in which he had got into trouble before relocating successfully to his father's home in Northampton. Contact in Northampton seemed to be the obvious thing, but was ruled out by the mother's uninvestigated fundamental objection to making the journey.
2. The possibility of Jack visiting his mother in Sydenham was live up until the surfacing of allegations from Jack that he had been sexually abused by somebody in the Sydenham area. So that was something that Ms Palmer was at pains to warn the judge against. She had said quite clearly in the course of her oral evidence that it was not in Jack's interest to go back to that neighbourhood, and then later in her evidence she had said:

"I really don't feel it's safe for him to return at this point, not to that. I have strong, strong anxieties about that, your Honour."

3. The litigation stance of counsel at the end of the case was unusual. They would have agreed an order for reasonable contact, undefined. The judge was not content with that. Mr Burns for the mother informed the judge that his instructions were to consent to nothing and to oppose nothing, because the mother who was really weary of litigation and was not interested in whatever order might emerge.
4. Anyway, the judge went on to make an order not by consent that once in July, once in August, father take Jack to the mother's area of Sydenham for two hours' contact in a coffee house or contact centre chosen by the father but convenient to the mother. Then once in September, once in October, the judge enlarged to say that the mother could take Jack from the meeting point for a period of four hours, providing no one else other than the half-sibling was there, and providing that the mother had informed the father in advance. All this was to be subject to a further hearing on 4 November.
5. Wall LJ set up this hearing, saying that the case was a worrying one and that the judge had not properly thought through the issues and might have made an order that was not in Jack's best interests. Accordingly, he set up an oral hearing on notice with appeal to follow.
6. I, having heard submissions from Ms McCormack and Mr Burns, who both appeared below, and from Ms Palmer, who has very kindly come to court this morning in fulfilment of a wish expressed by Wall LJ, I reach these conclusions. One, that it is very sad that the telephone access which was set up by consent and embodied in the order of 6 May has broken down. It is quite impossible for us to investigate why it has broken down, but it is really important for this boy that it be revived, and Ms Palmer has said that she can go and see him next week to discover what he is saying about it. The order will be there on the record, paragraph 2(a), and it is to be complied with, although the obligation is more expressed to be on the mother to facilitate, but it does seem to me that it will be sensible to vary that provision 2(a) very slightly to make plain that it is equally incumbent on the father to facilitate that telephone contact. It had better not be resumed until Ms Palmer has had an opportunity of looking at the situation, but I am sure she would do her best to try and get it up and running again.
7. As to paragraph (b) of the order, the July date has come and gone as a result of a stay imposed by Wall LJ; but 2 August, 6 September and 5 October must go ahead. I would, however, vary the venue to say that father will take Jack to and collect Jack from the cafeteria on the 1^st or 2^nd floor at John Lewis in Oxford Street. That is a very convenient location, being very well served by public transport, both bus and underground. The duration of the meeting I would leave at the same two hours. So it is simply a variation of the venue.
8. Now, rather ominously, father is saying through Ms McCormack that he is now not prepared to agree anything but Northampton. Well, that is a regressive step, and I do exhort him to consider his position objectively, put Jack's welfare first, see that he is only being asked to make this sacrifice on three occasions, and that without that cooperation there is very little for Ms Palmer to assess and very little opportunity for the judge to address matters at the adjourned hearing. I would propose that intervention on the simple ground that the judge did not sufficiently reflect in his intervention the need to protect Jack against the risks identified by Ms Palmer.
9. So I would grant permission and to that limited extent allow the appeal and vary the order.

Lord Justice Rix:

10. I agree.

Order: Application granted; appeal allowed; order varied.