Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
(Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Macur, Baker, Arnold LJJ, 01 April 2021)Public Law Children – Fact finding – Lucas Direction – Sexual abuse allegations – Judge found...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
HMCTS launches updated online court and tribunal finder
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has launched an updated version of its online court and tribunal finder tool to help those in search of a court, its location, opening times, disabled access...
NFJO publishes report on supervision orders in care proceedings
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) has published a report following its survey into the use of supervision orders in care proceedings. The survey focused on...
Villiers - the Anglo/Scottish perspective
Heard by the Supreme Court in December 2019, with its judgment last July, this case attracted much interest (or “lurid publicity” as per Mr Justice Mostyn in his judgement this week) as it...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Re C (Contact)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:33 PM
Slug : contact-re-c-contact
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 21, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 100957

(Court of Appeal, Sir John Thomas P, Moses, Black LJJ, 14 November 2012)

The mother of three children had a history of mental illness. While the father was on a trip abroad her mental health deteriorated significantly and the local authority obtained an emergency protection order and an interim care order.

At a subsequent hearing it was determined that the children would not be able to return home. As to the question of contact, it was found that at times the father was affectionate towards the children but on occasion he had said things which were distressing and harmful. The judge ordered contact on 8 occasions per year but the father refused to sign a contact agreement.

When a final care order was granted the judge heard evidence that during contact the father had made inappropriate comments which had undermined the foster placement. The judge granted the local authority an order under s 34(4) of the Children Act 1989. The father appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. Procedurally there had been no error in the course adopted by the judge. The father had advance warning of the application and was capable of dealing with the matters which had caused concern. The judge was entitled to make the s 34(4) order given that the earlier identified problems had not been resolved.

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