W (A Child), Re [2005] EWCA Civ 1614

Case No B4/2005/1642[2005] EWCA Civ 1614
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM STOKE-ON-TRENT COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE GLENN)
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday, 17th November 2005
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE THORPE
LORD JUSTICE RIX
LORD JUSTICE WILSON
W (A CHILD)
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR VALENTINE LE GRICE QC and MRS LINDA SWEENEY (instructed by Messrs Beeston Shenton Solicitors, Newcastle-under-Lyme ST5 1JB) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Mother
MR PATRICK WAINWRIGHT (instructed by Messrs Lichfield Reynolds Solicitors, Stoke-on-Trent ST3 1TU) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father
J U D G M E N T
Between
Appellant MotherAppellantRespondent FatherRespondent

LORD JUSTICE THORPE:

[1]The parties to this appeal commenced their relationship in 1999 and in consequence their only child, C, was born on [a date in] 2000. They separated about a year later, initially C residing with his mother. The transfer from mother to father as primary carer occurred in December 2001 as a result of a significant deterioration in the mother's mental health. That is the sad element of the case.[2]During the year 2002, the mother was involved in a series of turbulent exchanges, resulting in injunction orders being made against her and the suspension of supervised contact arrangements which had been put in place in January 2002 and which had continued until March. Thereafter there was no direct contact until August 2002, when two supervised contact sessions took place. There has been no meeting between C and his mother since 30th August 2002. On 7th February 2003 an order was made: paragraph 1 stated that there should be no direct contact between mother and child, but by paragraph 2 the mother was permitted to send letters, cards and presents and the father was obliged to send a progress report and photograph every three months. That indirect contact order has continued to this day without variation or interruption.[3]On 23rd November 2004 the father issued an application for permission to remove C permanently from the jurisdiction to Australia. The mother's response was an application for direct contact, which was issued on 30th December. On 13th January the court sought a section 7 report from social services, and that report was available to supplement the statements which each parent filed and an expert report from an adult consultant psychiatrist on the mother's mental health. That evidence was prepared for a hearing which took place on 18th July in the Stoke-on-Trent County Court before His Honour Judge Glenn. He heard oral evidence from the parents and also from the father's intended wife. He heard oral evidence from the maker of the section 7 report, and he had the written report of the consultant psychiatrist.[4]The case spilled over into the following day. After some further evidence and submissions from counsel, the judge delivered an extempore judgment granting the father's application and refusing the mother's cross-application.[5]Mrs Sweeney, who represented the mother below and who has been led by Mr Valentine Le Grice QC this morning, applied to the judge for permission to appeal, on the ground that his decision was plainly wrong. The judge, we are told, granted the application, saying no more than "of course".[6]In consequence a preliminary skeleton argument was filed by Mrs Sweeney at the end of July and that was answered by Mr Wainwright in August. But more recently, the public funding certificate has been extended to cover the costs of leading counsel and Mr Le Grice has come into the case. He yesterday sent to the court additional grounds of appeal and an additional skeleton argument.[7]We are grateful to Mr Le Grice for that groundwork, and fully understand that it could not have come earlier given the fact that he only received the papers last Friday. He has presented this appeal with conspicuous ability. I do not think that anybody could have presented a more intelligent and attractive argument than he has done: but he has faced enormous difficulty.[8]The judge made a careful appraisal of the facts and of the parties. Of the father he said:
"[The father] gave evidence and I took the view that he was an impressive witness."
[9]He said later:
"I have not formed any view in this case that [the father] is trying to exclude [C's] mother from his life."
[10]Of the mother he said:
"... I took the view that [she gave evidence] in an extremely dignified manner."
[11]The judge summarised the oral evidence that he had received from each of the witnesses, and he directed himself as to the law, looking to the case of Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469 and Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052 on the issue of relocation. On the issue of direct contact he referred to the cases of Re S [2004] 1 WLR 1279, Re M and, in the House of lords, the case of Re KD.[12]He had noted, in recording the evidence of the social worker, that her concern was, given the past history, whether mother would sustain her relationship and contact with agencies. She continued that in the past contact between mother and C was not quality contact and caused him difficulties. She said that what principally concerned her was the mental health side. She said that if the decision was to allow removal, direct contact in the meantime would be very difficult and upsetting for C. Even if he were not leaving, reintroduction at the age of five would be a very significant change. In conclusion she had said:
"I do not recommend direct contact at this stage."

The judge accordingly, adopting the social worker's anxieties, said at paragraph 24:

"I am concerned by [mother's] comments about the medication, given her background of reluctance to engage with appropriate help and non-compliance with the same."
That concern also derived from the assessment of the consultant to the effect that the mother's present equilibrium was clearly dependent on her prescription and on her continuing adherence to the prescribed medication.[14]So when

the judge came to pull these threads together, he said in paragraph 34:

"The reality in this case, however, is that any direct contact with [C], in my judgment, is inappropriate, given the mother's very lengthy absence from his life. Apart from the first eight months of his life she has not been his primary carer. I take the view that direct contact now would undoubtedly confuse and potentially cause emotional harm. [C] has been through an awful lot in his young life, and in the past his mother undoubtedly presented a risk to him. Reintroducing contact with his mother in the context of him recently having moved home to live with his father and his father's new wife, and a prospective emigration, would simply in my view be too much for to him deal with. I note that while she is currently well, Dr Strickland says that the mother remains vulnerable to potential relapse. He says: 'She would be protected from relapse by compliance with psychotropic medication and contact with mental health services.' He recommends that she takes anti-psychotic medication, even at a low dose, for several years and points out that it is important for [her] to be compliant with medication for her to stay well. 35. I am concerned that the mother's vulnerability would be exacerbated by a re-introduction to [C] for a short period, knowing as she would that he is going to leave the country in the not too far distant future. I say that because I have heard nothing to persuade me that the move to Australia would be against [C's] interests. Accordingly, having considered all of the evidence in this case I do grant leave to remove [C] from the jurisdiction and I dismiss the mother's application for direct contact."
[15]Mr Le Grice attacks the judge's judgment on a number of fronts. He says that there is a clear misdirection as to law, in that the judge in paragraph 30 adopted the headnote in the case of Poel as it appears in the Weekly Law Reports, where at 1469 we find this summary of the effect of the judgments:
"... regard had to be had to the welfare of the parent who had custody, since if he or she became unhappy it might adversely affect the child, and, therefore, there should be no interference with any reasonable mode of life selected by the parent having custody unless it was absolutely essential ..."
[16]The phrase that the judge has picked up and echoed in paragraph 30 is "unless it was absolutely essential". Mr Le Grice points out that there is no such expression in the judgments. The writer of the headnote founded himself on page 1473B-D and D-E, brief passages from the judgments of Winn and Sachs LJJ. Mr Le Grice's simple submission is that the law reporter had put the test higher than the court had intended and the headnote had, if not determined the judge's approach, certainly coloured it.[17]That is a very ingenious submission which has been carefully researched. However, it does not persuade me that the judge has gone off the rails in his direction as to the law. For in the following paragraph he made perfectly plain that he was primarily looking to the more recent authority of Payne v Payne, the effect of which he summarised in paragraph 31 and went on to apply in paragraph 32.[18]Mr Le Grice's second principal complaint is that there was no evidence here at all of the emotional impact on the father of refusal, and thus of the transference of unhappiness to the child. Certainly it is easy for Mr Le Grice to demonstrate that the father gave no direct evidence as to the emotional impact of refusal on him, either in his statement to the court or apparently in his discussions with the social worker. In those circumstances, it is not entirely surprising that the judge did not refer to that aspect in his judgment. Mr Le Grice submits that were there to be an inference of emotional distress to the primary carer in the present case, and then an inference of transference to the child, that would effectively lead to the creation of some rule of law that transference inevitably follows from refusal.[19]That too is an ingenious submission, but it seems to me to deny the reality of the present case. As the judge rightly recognised, and as the mother to her credit conceded, the father had had the desire and ambition to emigrate to Australia for many years. He had discussed it with her during the course of their relationship some five or more years earlier. Since the development of his relationship with his present wife, he had gone to a good deal of trouble investigating the possibilities, building on a base that his brother offered, being already established in Australia as a substantial householder. He had gone to considerable lengths to obtain the trade certificate that would be necessary for him to qualify as a desirable immigrant. His plans were thoroughly well laid. Effectively, the only impediment to his going was the possibility of reviving direct contact between mother and child. That possibility had to be very carefully evaluated by the judge. Here it is plain to me that the judge looked fully and carefully at the pros and cons, and in the end came to a negative decision, in line with the recommendation of the social worker.[20]The burden on the applicant has to be in proportion to the extent of the contrary factors. Here there was but a single contrary factor, and it was evaluated by the judge as unrealistic in all the circumstances.[21]I recognise the dilemma for the mother. As Mr Le Grice has said, she may have been impelled to apply prematurely in reaction to the relocation application. Of course it was important for her to defer an application until she could demonstrate full recovery from a sad breakdown in her mental health. But of course inevitably the longer the duration between August 2002 and the evaluation of the application, the higher the hurdle became.[22]In the end, I regard this as a straightforward case in which the judge had to make a balanced discretionary decision as to what proposal would best advance the welfare of C. He came to the conclusion that what was best for C was for the father and his new wife to establish their ambitions and to create a new life in Australia. He did not regard the disbenefit to C as high, as in many of these relocation cases, simply because of the tragic consequences of the mother's illness. It had interrupted her natural relationship with her son to such an extent and for such a period that it had small weight in the scale that the judge was holding.[23]So, despite Mr Le Grice's well-presented argument, I am not persuaded that this is a judgment which is in any respect flawed. The judge has explained himself sufficiently and persuasively. We must always bear in mind that this is an extempore judgment, and any imperfections in the summary of the effect of the relevant authorities must be judged with a degree of latitude.[24]I would simply dismiss the appeal.

LORD JUSTICE RIX: I agree.

MR JUSTICE WILSON: I also agree.

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs against the Legal Services Commission under section 11; detailed assessment of the appellant's public funded costs. (Order not part of approved judgment) ______________________________