Case No. ZE21P00991

64.M’s application for a s8 contact order is not subject to the ‘leave’ restriction which applies to an application to discharge a special guardianship order. In Re M the Court of Appeal observed that such applications should not be considered an abuse of process as a matter of principle, but that in suitable cases it may be appropriate for such applications, if unmeritorious, to be summarily dismissed. 65.It is not suggested by either MGM or the local authority that this applciation is unmeritorious and I am satisfied that is not the case: contact has broken down despite evidence in the contact notes filed by the local authority that it was of good quality and beneficial to T. There is therefore a need for the issue of contact to be reviewed by the court. 66.However, the current position seems to be that MGM is willing to facilitate contact, and the local authority is prepared to assist, but M will not engage in discussions to enable progress to be made. While I understand that M’s feelings towards MGM are complex, and that she has made allegations against MGM which will not now be determined by a court, the reality of this case is that the only way in which T’s important relationship with his mother can be maintained is if M engages with MGM to the limited extent which will be necessary to set up stable contact arrangements. The local authority’s offer to facilitate discussions around contact is almost certainly the best way of ensuring that contact resumes as soon as possible. M must bear in mind that if she declines to take up that offer it may be more difficult for the court to put in place appropriate contact arrangements, and it will certainly take much longer. ___________________1 Re P [2007] EWCA Civ 616