B1/2002/2175 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1867
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) 
ON APPEAL FROM NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT 
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MITCHELL)
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London, WC2 

Monday, 2 December 2002
 B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE 
 
- - - - - - -

H (A CHILD) 

- - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No:  020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
The Applicant did not attend and was unrepresented 
The Defendant did not attend and was unrepresented 
 - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
Monday, 2 December 2002 

1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE:  On 8 October 2002, His Honour Judge Mitchell, sitting in the Northampton County Court, made an order that a child, B, born on 13 February 1998, live with the applicant mother.  He made no order in respect of the children, L and M.  It was further ordered by consent that the respondent father should have regular contact and that the matter be listed for review on 7 March 2003 with an addendum report from the Children and Family Reporter.
2.	An application for permission and for a stay was lodged with this court on 22 October and referred to me as an urgent permission application.  I refused both applications on paper.  I said: 
"The judge accepted the evidence of the mother.  He was strongly critical of the father.  He explained at length his rejection of the Children and Family Reporter's advice.  He made a discretionary choice between finely balanced alternatives.  There are insufficient prospects of success." 
3.	At that stage the respondent was represented by solicitors who filed the permission application on his behalf.  He also had the advice of counsel who, by a written opinion of 21 October 2002, stated that the decision needed to be challenged on various grounds.  
4.	Today the respondent exercises his right to an oral hearing.  It appears that since my paper order his legal team has ceased to act, presumably for want of continuing public funding.  
5.	The respondent has not attended this morning's listing.  I have, however, looked again at the papers and particularly at the note of judgment in the court below.  I see no single reason to depart from the views that I expressed on 24 October, and in the absence of the respondent I refuse this renewed application.
(Application refused; no order for costs.)