The Court of Appeal has thrown out a father’s appeal against an order that he pay costs in a contact case.
In Re G, the father had already unsuccessfully appealed against a ruling that he could not have direct contact with his two children, who were aged eight and six. The ruling had also included a ‘barring order’ under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. This prohibited him from making applications regarding his children without prior court permission for a period of five years.
The father, an unrepresented litigant in person, was ordered to pay the mother’s costs. He was given permission to appeal the costs order.
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir Stanley Burnton noted that the original judgement had contained a number of critical findings about the father, in particular that he had a made a number of groundless accusations against the mother.
They concluded that the father’s application had been filed primarily to harass the mother, even though his financial resources were limited. The original judge had been entitled to make the order that he pay costs and had protected him from an unnecessarily high bill by specifying a detailed assessment.
They dismissed the man’s appeal.
He is not allowed to see his children at all – but it doesn’t say why ?
I refer the honourable members to the post I made some minutes ago.
criticises him for groundless accusations against the mother. My ex did this constantly against me in court and waxnt criticised once. Her applications were always malicious also. Another example if biax against fathers in family courts in england and wales.
My whole case was based on a litany of false allegations requiring a whole retinue of investigating professionals, including police, social services, NHS, Cafcass and an expensive court-appointed joint expert paid out of the public purse who thought the accusation manifestly false, yet not a word of criticism against a false accuser nor any costs order against her despite my own expenses nearing £20,000.
Talk about the double standards that apply. Angry fathers are easy targets for judicial retribution despite their anger often being rational, understandable and a logical response to the stress they come under when a relationship with their child is denied them.