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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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...
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