NO: B1/2001/0199

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 477
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(HER HONOUR JUDGE MITCHELL)

                                  Royal Courts of Justice
                                  Strand
                                  London WC2
 
                             Wednesday, 14th March 2001
B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

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

IN RE THE MATTER OF

N (a child)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171‑421 4040 Fax No: 0171‑831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR K, the Applicant in person

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

J U D G M E N T
Wednesday, 14th March 2001
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is Mr K's application for permission to appeal the order of Her Honour Judge Mitchell sitting as a deputy judge of the Family Division on 11th January 2001. The order made by the judge is a conventional order laying down a framework for the preparation of the contract dispute between the parents to final hearing.
2.	The judge said that there should be three contact visits with Mr K, one hour on each occasion, arranged and observed by Court Welfare Officer other than Mr Johnston and a condition of the contact that the father should not address the child by any name other than Eve. The judge then said that the Court Welfare Office must report by 11th June and that the case should be put before a circuit judge before the end of June with a time estimate of one day.
3.	I only have to say that to demonstrate that this application for permission is hopeless. This was only an interim order. The arrangements that the judge thought necessary in order to gather sufficient professional opportunity for decision‑making is obviously within her discretionary function. The sad thing is that on a previous occasion when the Court has ordered assessment contact, the father has boycotted the scheme saying that he defends his sense of principle.
4.	I have spent most of this brief hearing trying to convey to Mr K who seems to me a thoroughly genuine, loving father that unless he can bring himself to co‑operate with the scheme laid down by the judge on 11th January, the reality is that this direct contact will simply be terminated or suspended. I pointed out to him that three months have already gone by since the making of Judge Mitchell's order, and accordingly there are only three months left in which to fit in the three contact visits ordered by the judge and give the Court Welfare Officer sufficient time to file her report before the deadline.
5.	I pointed out to Mr K that if he continues to refuse his co‑operation with the Court's programme of assessment, he will effectively destroy his own case and leave the judge with no alternative but to make some very incomplete arrangement, probably indirect contact only. I just hope that Mr K will listen to me and recognise that what I urge upon him is the reality and perhaps even in, a very modest way, wise advice. Although it is not my function to advise Mr K, the interests of the child compel me to take this opportunity to emphasise to him that he has one precious opportunity that is fast ebbing away from him, and unless when he leaves this Court he makes immediate relationship with the Court Welfare Officer and initiates the assessment contact, he will find himself at odds not only with the mother but also with the Court, and that would be a great sadness.
6.	For the reasons that I have given I have no option but to refuse the application for permission.
(Application dismissed)