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 S (Minors) [2010] EWCA Civ 447

Sep 29, 2018, 17:51 PM
Slug : contact-re-s-minors-2010-ewca-civ-447
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 6, 2010, 10:50 AM
Article ID : 90861

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Wall and Aiken LJJ; 11 March 2010)

The mother was obstructing contact with the children now aged 12 and 13. The case was at the extreme end of difficulty in the field of intractable contact. The judge in the principal registry attached a highly unusual condition to the contact order that the ‘children have to decide for each contact whether to take it up or not'.  

Held that the judge had burdened the children with the responsibility that should not be asked to bear at that age. The condition was not supported by either the expert, or by the guardian, or by either parent. Subsequently the guardian's interviews with the children suggested very significant alienation. The case is to be listed before a Family Division judge, with judicial continuity. Given the resources available to the family, a child and adolescent psychiatrist ought to have been instructed.

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