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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

CONTEMPT: Button v Salama [2013] EWHC 2974 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:48 PM
Slug : contempt-button-v-salama-2013-ewhc-2974-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 15, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103797

(Family Division, Roderic Wood J, 2 July 2013)

The British mother and Egyptian father took their 6-year-old child to Egypt for a holiday during which they had a disagreement which prompted the father to remove the child and place her with his family members in Egypt. The child had since remained in Egypt.

When the mother initiated proceedings to secure her return various orders were made including making the child a ward of court. The father had failed to return the child. In addition he was required to provide details of the child's current situation in Egypt and to permit the mother and child to have Skype contact. The father failed to comply and claimed his family members were refusing to co-operate and give him any information as to the child's whereabouts.

During evidence the father was found to be evasive and dishonest. His account that compliance with the orders was beyond his control was disbelieved by the judge. He was found to be capable of complying with the orders but refused to do so. He was in clear breach of the court orders.

The father had so far been in custody for 18 months but these breaches were treated as fresh contempts. The judge held it would not be disproportionate to sentence the father further on that basis. The appropriate sentence, given the father's appalling and continuing behaviour was four 6-month sentences, in respect of separate breaches, to run concurrently. 

 

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