FAMILY DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(In Private)
____________________
A Mother | Appellant | |
- and - | ||
(1) A Father | ||
(2) A CHILD (through their Children's Guardian) | Respondents |
____________________
MR A FORBES appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
MR I ALBA appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MRS JUSTICE MORGAN:
"It is very regrettable that the application was not made much earlier. The decision was given on 14 March (the order recites that the mother was represented by Dr Proudman). It is a case management order for which the time appeal is seven days. It is, in my view, out of time. The appeal was lodged on day 21, and the skeleton argument did not follow until 14 days later. This has created an urgency which should have been avoided."
"The bundle should comprise only the appeal documents lodged by the appellant and the position statements of the father and children's guardian, which must be limited to a maximum of eight sides and filed no later than 4 p.m. on 1 May."
a) the court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or
b) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
a) the appeal will be allowed only where the decision of the lower court is wrong; or
b) it is unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings at the lower court.
"The court may conclude a decision is wrong [ ]:
i.) if an error of law has been made;
ii.) a conclusion on the facts which was not open to the judge on the evidence has been reached;
iii.) the judge has clearly failed to give due weight to some significant matter, or has clearly given undue weight to some [other] matter;
iv.) a process has been adopted which is procedurally irregular and unfair to an extent that it renders the decision unjust;
v.) a discretion has been exercised in a way which was outside the parameters within which reasonable disagreement is possible."
"It must be understood that in the case of appeals from case management decisions, the circumstances in which it can interfere are limited. The Court of Appeal can interfere only if satisfied that the judge erred in principle, took into account irrelevant matters, failed to take into account relevant matters, or came to a decision so plainly wrong that it must be regarded as outside the generous ambit of the discretion. [ ] There are sound pragmatic reasons for this approach. [Namely, first, that] 'case management should not be interrupted by interim appeals as this will lead to satellite litigation and delays in the litigation process.' [Two, that] 'the judge dealing with case management is often better equipped to deal with case management issues.'"
1. That the judge was wrong in departing from the guardian's recommendation not to set aside the consent order dated 29 June 2022 and instead to adjudicate on allegations falling post 29 June 2022.
2. That the judge erred in not considering the impact on the child of reopening old allegations that concerned her welfare, especially considering the guardian's evidence that to do so may be harmful to the child.
3. That the judge was wrong in failing to give reasons for allowing three previous sets of previous proceedings and allegations to be reopened without considering whether they are relevant and proportionate to the welfare of the child and the probative value of evidence that dates back seven years.
4. The judge failed to give reasons for not acceding to the public policy argument against reopening previous decisions, along with the President's Guidance in the Way Ahead document.
5. The judge's approach in allowing all the evidence and allegations pre-2022 into the proceedings is incompatible with the overriding objective, and the judge failed to give reasons as to why it is necessary and proportionate to consider all historical allegations.
6. It is procedurally irregular and improper to admit into evidence transcripts of evidence from around six witnesses in 2022 when mother was part-heard during her evidence, father did not give evidence and without considering whether those witnesses may need to be recalled.
7. The judge was wrong in failing to explain or give reasons for going behind his own decision at the earlier hearing of 12 January 2024 without any formal written application from the father.
" which states that they withdraw their allegations against each other. The court endorses the same. Neither parent poses a risk to the child as a result of those allegations (therefore they do not need investigating), and both parties agreed that in these specific findings and allegation [emphasis added by counsel] for this time frame should not be pursued in any future proceedings [again, emphasis added]."