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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Re M (Contact Refusal: Appeal) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147

Sep 29, 2018, 18:45 PM
Slug : contact-re-m-contact-refusal-appeal-2013-ewca-civ-1147
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 24, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103601

(Court of Appeal, Longmore, Underhill, Macur LJJ, 20 September 2013)

The mother of three children aged 7, 5 and 3, escaped the family home after experiencing significant domestic violence over a prolonged period and obtained accommodation at a refuge. The two older children had witnessed the violence towards the mother and had been subjected to over chastisement. A consultant forensic child and adolescent psychiatrist found the father to exhibit symptoms of several personality disorders. The mother claimed she feared the father would abduct the children out of the jurisdiction and for honour-based violence and death at the hands of or the instigation of the father.

The father's application for contact was refused on the basis of the judge's findings as to the truthfulness of the mother's fears. The father appealed.

The order for no contact was draconian and could only be proportionate if the court had considered and discarded all reasonable and available avenues to promote the children's rights to respect for their family life including in the interests of promoting their welfare throughout their minority, contact with their discredited father.

On the facts of the case the course had not been demonstrated to be proportionate to the legitimate end which the judge pursued in ensuring the viability and stable placement of the children with their mother. That was not to consider the question of proportionality anew but merely to review it in accordance with the challenge made in the appeal process. The appeal was allowed, the order set aside and the case remitted for re-hearing with a view to an informed investigation of any supervised contact resources appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case. 

 

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