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
Authors

CONTACT: Re T (Contact: Application to Replace Indirect Contact with Supervised Contact)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Slug : contact-re-t-contact-application-to-replace-indirect-contact-with-supervised-contact
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 26, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 102281

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Rafferty, Kitchin LJJ, 16 April 2013)

The father was granted contact with his two children on a supervised basis due to concerns that if unsupervised he would remove the children to his homeland.

The father applied for a variation of the contact arrangements because the contact agency was no longer willing to facilitate contact. He also applied to change the name of the younger child. The judge reduced the arrangements to only indirect contact and refused the change of name application without providing reasons. The father appealed.

The judge was under a duty to explore every possible option for continuing supervised contact and he had failed to do so. He had also overlooked his responsibility to rule on the change of name application.

The order for supervised contact was restored and the change of name application remitted to the county court.

 

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