The Court of Appeal dismissed an in-person appeal against refusal of leave to seek judicial review in a non-refoulement claim, finding no error, unfairness, or irrationality.
Leave to appeal was refused because the father had no reasonable prospect of success: the court had no jurisdiction in this leave application to remove mother's custody; there was no evidence supporting the father's allegations of intimidation; the social welfare and psychological reports supported the impugned order and explicitly recommended no visitation compensation; the father's unexplained absence from the 22 March hearing meant he was taken to have waived opposition to the social welfare report.
The court ordered joint custody and equal shared care and control for two young children, with a seven-to-seven schedule, finding it best served their welfare.
The court varied interim child arrangements, ordered structured term-time access for the father, kept care and control with the mother, and directed therapy and a parental coordinator.
The court awarded sole custody, care and control to the mother because independent social work and clinical psychology reports found the child is well-settled, has a close positive relationship with the mother, expresses a clear and stable wish to remain with her, and the parents cannot cooperate; supervised defined access for the father was ordered on a gradual basis and a 9-month supervision order plus psychological services were required to safeguard the child's welfare.
Given the child's age (6), established primary care by the mother, the lack of mutual trust between parents, the absence of evidence that mother’s concerns are well-founded to the point of precluding supervised contact, and the social worker's detailed, impartial recommendation, the court concluded the child's best interests are served by joint legal custody with the mother having care and control, supervised daytime non‑overnight contact for the father of three hours weekly with a third party present, social welfare monitoring for 12 months, and a prohibition on taking the child out of juris…
Court varied interim access orders for a 2-year-old child, phased in longer daytime contact, and ordered overnight staying access to begin later with updated expert reports.