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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles
Authors

CONTEMPT: Re R (Committal)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:48 PM
Slug : contempt-re-r-committal
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 16, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103801

(Court of Appeal, Sullivan, Ryder and Macur LJJ, 10 Oct 2013)

The mother and father both appealed following contempt proceedings. Their 13-year-old son was removed from their care and placed in local authority specialist care. When the parents visited separately they both gave him money following which he absconded from the centre. He was arrested and returned but absconded again necessitating a collection order requiring the parents to deliver the child or to inform the tipstaff of his whereabouts.

When the parents failed to comply committal proceedings were commenced. The judge found the father had strongly disagreed with the child's placement, that he had given him money and knew where he absconded to, in breach of the collection order. He also inferred from the mother's actions that she too knew where the child was. Both were found in contempt and were given prison sentences.

The parents' appeals were dismissed. In light of the findings made by the judge there was sufficient evidence for him to infer that each had knowledge of the child's whereabouts. The appeals were totally without merit.

 

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