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...
Latest articles
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : b-v-s-2009-ewca-civ-548
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 14, 2009, 09:11 AM
Article ID : 89303

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Wilson LJJ; 14 May 2009)

In the context of a serious history of refusal to comply with contact orders, the mother was sentenced to three concurrent terms of 28 days' imprisonment for three contempts of court, including her refusal to comply with two orders requiring her to make the 3-year-old child available for contact with the father. During the hearing it was arranged that the 3-year-old child would remain in the care of the maternal grandmother, with whom the mother and her children were living. However, the judge assumed that the mother's 3-month-old baby from a different relationship, who was still breast-feeding, would be able to reside with the mother in prison. In fact, when the mother arrived at the prison, it became clear that the prison authorities required 28 days notice to make arrangements for the baby. The mother appealed her sentence. The father did not oppose the mother's appeal.

The judge had been entitled to consider the wider context of the mother's refusal to comply with contact orders, and therefore to recite earlier breaches of contact orders. The court declined to suspend the mother's sentence; the days were long gone when mothers could assume that their role as carers of children protected them from being sentenced to immediate terms of imprisonment for clear, repeated and deliberate breaches of contact orders. However, the baby's right to respect for family life had been breached by the judge, inadvertently, because he had not realised that the sentence being imposed on the mother would require the separation of the baby from the mother. Therefore the appeal was allowed; the court would apply forthwith to the prison for authorisation for the baby to accompany the mother for the duration of any term of imprisonment. The court directed a further hearing before the original judge after 28 days, to review the prison's response. If, in the meantime, contact between the 3 year old child and the father had taken place, the judge might choose to view the mother's contempt in a different light.

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