Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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