(Court of Appeal; Wall LJ; 25 August 2006)  The Times October 6,  2 FLR (forthcoming)
Refusing permission to appeal in both cases, the court noted that these two cases were typical of many cases in which fathers had been refused either a residence order or direct contact with children. It was in the interests of open justice to discuss these cases, not least to dispel the myth that there was a gender bias in the family court system which operated to deny contact to non-residential fathers. While contact did sometimes break down because of implacable hostility of the mother, in the judge's experience it broke down more often because of behaviour of the father. The reason the fathers in these two cases were not having contact with their children was exclusively their own behaviour.