Case No:  B4/2011/0644 
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 853
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM  COVENTRY COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER READINGS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Tuesday 14th June 2011

Before:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(SIR NICHOLAS WALL))
LORD JUSTICE RIX 
and
LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	In the matter of W (Children) 		

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

( DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Theresa McCormack (instructed by Button Legal LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Maria Savvides (instructed by Tollers LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Sir Nicholas Wall

1.	This is an appeal brought by permission of Wilson LJ against an order made by Mr Recorder Readings sitting in the Coventry County Court on 3 March of 2001.  It concerns two very small children, whom I will identify only by their initials: VW, a little girl born on [a date] 2007, and JW, born on [a date] 2009.  

2.	The effect of the Recorder's order was that there were to be four periods of contact between the children and their father, two supervised and two supported, following which the contact centre in question was to report and thereafter the case was to revert to a pattern of contact which had existed pursuant to what we are told is a consent order made by HHJ Cleary on 28 June of 2010.  The father was also to undertake a parenting course, and as soon as practical the matter was to come back for review and directions before HHJ Bellamy on 19 May 2011.  We have been told at the Bar today that those four contact periods did take place, albeit not as initially I think envisaged.  There has been no report from the centre, but the matter has been back certainly before the District Judge in relation to incidents which are alleged to have taken place during one of the contact periods.

3.	I say at once that in my view the case is in a most unfortunate muddle.  We have today been presented with a very substantial bundle of the pre-existing documents which none of us have had the opportunity to read and we are also faced with an order made by the Recorder without a judgment, notwithstanding that the Recorder heard a great deal of evidence and clearly must have made findings of fact which resulted in the order under appeal.  

4.	Therefore in my view the case is in a very serious muddle and it needs sorting out.  I do not forget that at the heart of it are two small children, whose welfare is of course of paramount consideration, but in my view this case needs an experienced hand to deal with it and in my view this appeal serves very little if any purpose since it has effectively been spent.  My solution therefore is to put the matter into experienced hands, and the obvious person to deal with the case henceforth is HHJ Bellamy, who is the designated family judge for Coventry and who, as I understand it, already has a knowledge of the case.  I would therefore, for my part, list the father's application and (any cross-application by the mother) for hearing as a matter of urgency before HHJ Bellamy for directions for him thereafter either to take a grip of the case and to deal with it or to allocate it so that it is dealt with swiftly.  

5.	The question which remains is not altogether easy.  What does one do with the order of HHJ Cleary dated 28 June 2010?  The mother's position, as I understand it, is that the “supervision” provided by that order, which includes now, pursuant to the Recorder's order, that of the father's sister is ineffectual and contrary to the interest of the children.  The father's case is that both ladies would not stand by to allow the children to be assaulted and what is more both the father's sister and his mother were heard by Recorder Readings as a result of which he made the order under paragraph (1)(c) on 3 March.

6.	We are not in a position to resolve those arguments either way.  The person to deal with them is the person on the ground.  Speaking for myself, therefore, I would stay paragraph 1(c) of the Recorder's order pending the urgent hearing before HHJ Bellamy, and it will be for HHJ Bellamy to decide whether or not the stay should continue or whether or not it should be discharged, ie so that contact can take place pending any further order that HHJ Bellamy may seek to make or any further directions which he may give.  I would therefore, speaking for myself, dismiss the appeal and stay paragraph 1(c) until such time as HHJ Bellamy can hear the matter.  

7.	I would direct the matter be listed urgently for directions before HHJ Bellamy.  Both parties must make their positions very clear to him by means of position statements filed not less than 24 hours before the date fixed for the hearing before HHJ Bellamy and HHJ Bellamy, as I say, will then decide whether the stay should continue or whether the stay should be discharged.  He will also be in a position to deal with interim contact pending any further hearing which he may see fit to direct and he may give whatever directions he thinks are appropriate.

8.	I appreciate that this is frustrating from the father's point of view, because he says that the children enjoy contact and that this case has been outstanding for a long time and needs to be resolved.  I agree that it needs to be resolved.  I also agree that it needs to be resolved by an experienced hand, and that is the reason why, speaking for myself, I would send it to HHJ Bellamy.

9.	An application must be made immediately for a short appointments hearing in front of the judge.  I have no doubt that, conscientious man as he is, HHJ Bellamy will ensure that listing occur within the next week or so and thereafter he can decide the future of the case on the basis of the evidence which will be available to him.  That is the order that I would propose.

Lord Justice Rix: 

10.	I agree.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick: 

11.	I also agree.

Order: Appeal dismissed