The hearing concerned the applications by the mother and the guardian for an order – against both parents – under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. (A s.91(14) order provides that no application for an order under the Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the court.) The father's skeleton argument is set out in full at paragraph 11 of the judgment, and I will limit myself to quoting paragraph 2 of it:
"The Applicant considers that both Mr Justice Munby and Lord Justice Wilson have abused their positions of power and authority as judges, have violated their judicial oaths, and have acted in gross dereliction of their duties towards the child the subject of these proceedings. They have diminished the rule of law, have acted with partiality in pretence of the child's interests, and have substituted other principles for the paramount consideration of the child's welfare. In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Wilson gave a Judgment almost totally devoid of merit which failed to grapple with nearly all of the Applicant's Grounds of Appeal, though it did include a fair amount of vilification of the Father. It was however an excellent example of the current modus operandi of that Court."I would respectfully suggest that this just possibly may not stand as a good model precedent for anyone involved in such proceedings in the future.