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

FAMILY PROCEEDINGS: Re A (Contact Order)

Sep 29, 2018, 15:13 PM
Slug : family-proceedings-re-a-contact-order
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 9, 2010, 10:21 AM
Article ID : 84597

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Arden LJJ; 9 February 2010)

An order was made preventing the child from contacting its mother. The parents applied for a variation of the order to allow the child contact with the mother. The child wanted to see mother and the guardian's position was that child should see mother if it was safe to do so.

The parents applied for the child to have separate representation, on the basis of conflict of opinion with the guardian. The application was refused and the parents' appeal dismissed. The child's expressed views were close to guardian's and there was no evidence to support the parents' argument that the guardian's wishes conflicted with those of the child. The judge had the discretion to allow separate representation, but it was reasonable for the judge to conclude that representation was not needed.

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