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

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