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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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