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

PRIVACY: Doncaster MBC v Haigh, Tune and X (By the Children's Guardian)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:02 PM
Slug : FamilyDivision22082011-DoncasterMBC
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 27, 2011, 12:15 PM
Article ID : 96443

(Family Division; Sir Nicholas Wall P; 22 August 2011)

Allegations of sexual abuse of child by father were fabricated by the mother. A fact-finding hearing found the mother coached the child to make allegations which had been entirely false. The mother failed to recognise harm to the child and to allow contact between the child and father. The child was removed from the mother's care to live with the father. The mother was aided and abetted by another person, together they posted the allegations of sexual abuse on the internet, informed parents at the child's school and the father's work colleagues in breach of a court order. The local authority sought to disseminate judgment in order to put the record straight.#

Permission to report judgment granted and s 91(14) order in respect of the mother granted. Document produced with key information in the case to be published alongside the judgment.  

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