[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 >> S (A Child), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1615 (20 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1615.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1615

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
WOLVERHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(HER HONOUR JUDGE HUGHES)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Friday, 20 September 2002

Friday, 20th September 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is Mr Sharma's application for permission to appeal the order of Her Honour Judge Hughes, sitting in the Wolverhampton County Court, on 19th April 2002. The first point to make is that Mr Sharma's application for permission to appeal was not received in the office until 9th July 2002, nearly three months after the order. Mr Sharma is no stranger to the portals of this court. He has had an application before Ward LJ and another application before me, both of which are relatively recent, by which I mean within the course of the last two years.
2. What then is the merits point that Mr Sharma desires to argue? The hearing before Judge Hughes involved three applications from Mr Sharma. The first was that he should have a residence order in respect of his two daughters, M and S, born in 1990 and 1992 respectively; second, that he should have a direct contact order if his residence order failed; thirdly, that he should know the addresses of the schools that the girls attend. The applications were all opposed by the mother and the judge had the advantage of a report from the Children and Family Reporter, Miss Gail, who was opposed to the grant of any of these three applications in the sense that she had come to the conclusion based on her interviews and inquiries that to grant any of the applications would not advance the welfare of the two girls.
3. The judge came to the same conclusion. She explained herself in these terms. She said:

"With respect to Mr Sharma, he seems to have little or nor insight into the needs of the children for continuity, stability and security."

4. That observation reflects the fact at that Mr Sharma has not seen either of the children since May 1997. On that, an application for a residence order is simply fantasy; on that, an application for immediate direct weekly contact is simply unrealistic. As to the last application, the refusal of disclosure of the schools' addresses, although that stands on a different footing it was entirely a matter for the judge's discretion and she refused in order to protect the mother in her state of anxiety that disclosure would lead to unwise and unwanted school visits.
5. I have endeavoured to explain to Mr Sharma that this application is hopeless in the sense that he cannot demonstrate the smallest prospect of success were permission granted. Mr Sharma has very deep feelings that he has been wronged and his family have been wronged since the original investigation by the court welfare officer in 1994 or 1995. It did not extend to the observation of a meeting between himself and the girls. I have endeavoured to explain to Mr Sharma I cannot go back into that history. All I have to do is to investigate the judgment given on 19th April for either misdirection or error. It is certainly not a case in which it could be said that the judge was plainly wrong. Indeed, any objective observer would incline to the view that her conclusion was plainly right.
6. I have great sympathy for Mr Sharma. It is a very difficult thing to accept, the loss of a relationship with your only children. I have endeavoured to explain to him that pursuing hopeless applications will not advance his objective, his only hope is to persist with the arrangements for indirect contact and to live in hope that the girls as they grow older will, of their own volition, be curious to see him again. After all, M is now 12 years of age, and as she advances in her teens she will undoubtedly become increasingly independent of mind and action.
7. All that said there is nothing that I can do for Mr Sharma today. The application that he presents is without merit and must be dismissed.
(Application dismissed; no order for costs).