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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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