Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

CONTEMPT: London Borough of Ealing v Connors [2013] EWHC 3493 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:53 PM
Slug : contempt-london-borough-of-ealing-v-connors-2013-ewhc-3493-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 18, 2013, 09:36 AM
Article ID : 104047

(Family Division, Theis J, 11 October 2013)

The two girls, aged 14 and 11, were made subject to emergency protection and recovery orders when they went missing. The local authority was already involved with the family due to concerns regarding domestic violence, attendance at school and medical appointments. There was also an allegation that the 14-year-old girl had been violently assaulted by her 16-year-old brother and her father.

The mother claimed to have been told that the girls were in Manchester with relatives but she failed to deliver them to the court or provide contact information. The mother was remanded in custody and she accepted she had had opportunities to produce the children but failed to do so as she feared they would be taken into local authority care.

It was now clear that the mother's evidence had been inherently unreliable and inconsistent. In addition it was also clear that it had been within the mother's power to produce the girls to the local authority but failed to do so. She was in breach of the collection order and her ongoing duty to provide information as to the whereabouts of the children.

After considering the mitigating circumstances the judge commented that it was an extremely serious matter when the court was unable to trace the whereabouts of children, and it was particularly serious when the court was unable to do that because the person who could assist in that would not provide the help to locate the children. The very least sentence which could be imposed was one of 28 days' imprisonment. In view of the fact that there had been no reliable co-operation with the court that sentence could not be suspended.

 

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