CONTACT APPEALIn Re P (Minors) (Contact) [1996] The Times, 15 May, the Court of Appeal considered the question of an appeal from the judge on an issue of contact.

In this case, the recorder had refused to make an order for contact between a father and his children.

This was because of the parents' inability to stop denigrating one another with its consequent effects on the children and the risk to the mother's health if contact continued.

In considering the appeal, Wall J referred to G v G (Minors: custody appeal) [1985] FLR 894: an appellate court should only interfere with the discretion of the judge if his/her exercise of that discretion is plainly wrong.Wall J summarised the principles that should guide the court in granting contact referring to Re O (Contact; imposition of conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124, CA:-- the welfare of the child is paramount and the court is only concerned with the interests of parents where they affect the child's welfare;-- it is almost always in the interests of a child to have contact with both parents;-- the court should not hesitate to enforce contact orders where the judge considers it in the child's interests; -- occasionally cases arise where the court decides it is not in the child's interests to see the absent parent; but in such cases it is normally desirable for there to be indirect contact.In Re P the court concluded that the judge had erred in his discretion by failing to take account of the benefits to the children of maintaining direct contact with their parents.Practitioners must always be wary of seeking to mount appeals where a judge's discretion is in question.

In G v G, Lord Fraser stressed that often children cases were not about a right solution but a choice between two wrong solutions.

Unless a putative appellant can show that the judge was 'plainly' wrong then an appeal will not get off the ground.DISCOVERY AND FURTHER EVIDENCE WHERE 'NECESSARY'In Hall v Selvaco Ltd [1996] The Times, 27 March, the court refused to order interrogatories which were not necessary.

The case stresses that orders for discovery, interrogatories, replies to questionnaires under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 r.2.63, orders for production of documents and so on are a matter for the court's discretion.

The court can limit discovery if satisfied that it 'is not necessary for disposing fairly of the action or for saving costs' (Rul es of the Supreme Court 1965 ord 24 r.2(5)); interrogatories may only relate to a matter in question between the parties and if 'necessary either (a) for disposing fairly of the cause or matter, or (b) for saving costs' Lord 26 r.1(1)); an order for production of a document Lord 38 r.13) or for a 'production appointment' under the Family Proceedings Rules 12991 r.262(7) will only be made where it is considered 'necessary' by the court