Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Re K (Contact Order: Posed Risk by Father)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:51 PM
Slug : contact-re-k-contact-order-posed-risk-by-father
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 28, 2013, 06:38 AM
Article ID : 103917

(Court of Appeal, Arden, Ryder and Macur LJJ, 18 Oct 2013)

When the parents separated the child was removed from the father's home by police and he was initially placed in foster care before being placed with the mother. In proceedings considering residence and contact a fact-finding hearing found that the father had received a self-inflicted stab wound and that he had started a fire at his own home.

The judge found that the father was a risk to the child including that he might abduct the child. The father refused to accept the findings but his application for a residence order was dismissed and supervised contact was ordered twice a year. Further a s 91(14) order was made for 10 years' duration. The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In light of the findings made against the father the contact order had been appropriate. In addition the duration of the s 91(14) order could not be interfered with once the judge had determined that it was appropriate to grant an order it was for him to determine the duration.

 

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