Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

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