Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

WARDSHIP: T v S (Wardship) [2011] EWHC 1608 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:48 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC1608
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 25, 2011, 02:22 AM
Article ID : 95477

(Family Division; Hedley J; 27 May 2011)

A long-standing parental conflict over residence of and contact with child. The child had been made a ward of court and there was a question whether the wardship should be continued. Almost every aspect of the exercise of parental responsibility was in dispute. The judge treated the parents as having forfeited their parental responsibility to the court.

Wardship was unusual but remained permissible where needs of the child so required within a private law context. The court ought to retain this case within wardship. The residence order had assumed totemic status in the minds of the parties. The court needed to exercise control through detailed provisions of its order. The consequence of wardship was that care and control was in the gift of the court and parental responsibility rested in court. The child was to stay with the mother but time spent with father was to increase significantly. The father and mother each to have care and control in wardship during time child spent with them.  Family assistance order made. Because wardship case, no s 91(14) order was made to restrain further applications, use of inherent powers instead.  

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from