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
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
Authors

CONTACT: AB v BB and C, D, E and F (By their Children’s Guardian) [2013] EWHC 227 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:00 PM
Slug : contact-ab-v-bb-and-c-d-e-and-f-by-their-childrens-guardian-2013-ewhc-227-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 21, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101709

(Family Division, Theis J, 13 February 2013)

The parents' of four children, aged between 6 and 2, had a volatile relationship and the father had been convicted of domestic violence offences against the mother. The father sought direct or indirect contact with the children and a further risk assessment if the court determined that it did not have sufficient information to make a decision. The mother supported by Cafcass opposed contact and sought permission to change the name of the children.

The mother had been assisted by the police and other agencies to obtain secure accommodation at a location unknown to the father and a MAPPA assessment found the mother was justified in her fears.

Dismissing the father's application for contact. The welfare of the children was the paramount concern. They were too young to express their views and their welfare needs were for the security and stability of the care they were receiving from their mother. The mother's fear was genuine based on her experiences with the father. The father's attitude and behaviour underpinned the risk of future harm to the children particularly so as the father had no understanding of the impact upon the mother of the offences and the power relationship.

Applying FPR 25.1 the court did not reasonably require a risk assessment by a consultant psychiatrist in order to resolve the proceedings. There was little real evidence of a change of attitude by the father and any assessment would miss the point as it would not take into account the mother's perception, fear, her emotional state and the impact of that on the children.

The mother's application to change the children's names was granted. The safety aspect from the children's point of view was critical. Theirs was not a common name and given the father's expressed intentions of discovering where they lived it would be detrimental if their names were not changed.

 

 

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