[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> B (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 467 (13 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/467.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 467

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT
(Her Honour Judge Fisher)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 13th February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application for permission to appeal brought by Mr. B. The order that he challenges is an order made by Her Honour Judge Fisher sitting in the Nottingham County Court on 23rd May 1994. The papers include a transcript of the evidence on that occasion, which at least reveals that both parties were represented by experienced counsel.
2. The dispute between the parents related to a child T, born on 2nd April 1984, who was admitted to respite care at the Children's Centre City Hospital in Nottingham on occasions when his mother became overwhelmed with the burden of caring for a severely handicapped child. We do not have a transcript of the judgment of 23rd May but the note which is available shows that the judge had been dealing with the case consistently, and that in the interim, since the previous hearing on 28th February, Mr. B had made an application for staying contact instead of or during the course of the respite breaks. That application failed, the judge being satisfied that the father had a tendency to uncontrollable temper, expressing itself in aggression and abuse. Accordingly, the application for staying contact was dismissed, although an order was made for Saturday contact at the local contact centre.
3. The application for permission to appeal is undated but had a set down date of 1st January 2001. So the question arises, why is this court invited to grant permission in relation to an order made over six years ago? I have searched the documentation submitted by the applicant in vain for any answer. He has submitted that evidence more recently obtained demonstrates that the consultant who was responsible for T during respite care is unreliable or was unreliable in the evidence that he gave in the 1994 inquiry, but the reality is that this is a hopeless application. Particularly in children cases, the issues are only live and justiciable in the short compass of time after the trial court has ruled, for the lives of children move on, and a child who was 10 or thereabouts at the date of the order in the court of trial would now be nearing his majority. Mr. B has not made the journey to this court for this hearing and that may be the most realistic decision that he has taken. This is a hopeless application and it will accordingly be dismissed.
Order: Application refused.