B1/2002/0110
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 607
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                              
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NORWICH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Curl)
							Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

							Wednesday 17th April, 2002
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

- - - - - -

D (CHILDREN)

- - - - - -

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - -

THE APPLICANT/MOTHER did not appear and was not represented

THE RESPONDENT/FATHER did not appear and was not represented

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mrs D applies for permission to appeal. She also seeks an extension of time and permission to submit fresh evidence. There are two distinct applications. The first has been designated 2002/0110. That attacks an order made by His Honour Judge Curl on 6th December 2001 sitting in Norwich. The second application has been designated 2002/0780, and that attacks an order made by the same judge on 27th March 2002. 
2.	The hearings in front of the judge result from a separation between the parties which took place in 1996. There were two children of the marriage: M, born in 1991, and A, born in 1994. Sadly both children suffer from autism and are represented in the proceedings by a guardian ad litem. Since 1998 they have been living with their father, to whom a residence order has been entrusted. 
3.	Following the breakdown of the marriage, the local authority obtained emergency protection orders in March 1997 and Johnson J, in January 1999, made supervised contact orders in favour of Mrs D, providing for six contact sessions per year. He also made an order against her under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. However, on 13th August 2001 Johnson J granted permission to commence the proceedings which resulted in the hearings of December 2001 and March 2002 before Judge Curl. 
4.	On 6th December all that Judge Curl did was to make various directions orders, the nature of which it is unnecessary for me to summarise. However, on 14th February 2002 the mother filed a further application seeking further directions and that led to the listing on 27th March. On that day Judge Curl decided to invite the Official Solicitor to act on the mother's behalf, clearly having misgivings as to her capacity to represent herself. The issue is to be returned before the judge on 22nd April, when a decision will be known on the court's request to the Official Solicitor. 
5.	The two applications for permission contain grounds which seek to put in issue approximately seven of the orders made by Judge Curl in December 2001, and a further three orders made by the judge on 27th March. It is enough to say that all those orders are only interlocutory directions to advance the case towards trial. All of them are essentially matters for the exercise of the trial judge's discretionary management. Nothing in these applications casts the least doubt on their validity and propriety. 
6.	The applications for permission are both hopeless and I have no hesitation in dismissing them, as well as the mother's application for an extension of time and for permission to submit additional evidence. 
7.	I only add that these applications have been twice adjourned by this court, by Ward LJ in particular. On the second occasion he made it plain that it was a very last adjournment. The listing today has been the subject of two written applications for adjournment by Mrs D. I have considered each of those applications carefully and rejected both. A communication was received in the office this morning at 9.04am, to the effect that Mrs D would be unable to attend today's hearing in any event due to ill health. 
“The strain of fighting an entire corrupt system has had a devastating effect on my health.” 
8.	I cite that passage verbatim. I do not wish in any way to seem unsympathetic to Mrs D. I have obviously considered all that she has advanced on her own behalf. But there is, in my judgment, no risk of any injustice in taking the course which I have this afternoon, which is to proceed to hear and determine in her absence. Furthermore, I direct that these applications may not be re-listed.
ORDER: Applications for permission to appeal, an extension of time and for permission to rely on further evidence refused.
(Order not part of approved judgment)