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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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