Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Contact Activities: Parenting Information Programmes - Family Law journal

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : flj1010MARTINDANCEY
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 7, 2010, 11:21 AM
Article ID : 92725

DISTRICT JUDGE MARTIN DANCEY, Bournemouth Combined Court and RONI JONES, Chief Executive Officer of Relate Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch

The new ss 11A-P of the Children Act, introduced with effect from 8 December 2008 by Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act 2006, are intended to expand the powers available to the court to promote, monitor and enforce contact. This article looks at the first of those purposes - the promotion, or facilitation, of contact, embodied in the provision of contact activity directions or conditions under ss 11A-G and, specifically, Parenting Information Programmes (PIPs) (or co-parenting programmes).

The Government's Green Paper Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities Cm 6273 (2004), the report of responses to the Green Paper Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities: Next Steps Cm 6452 (2005) and the Government's Response Cm 6583 (2005) recognised that court is not the ideal place to resolve children arrangements following separation. In fact only 10% of contact arrangements are underpinned by contact orders; 82% of resident parents and 88% of non-resident parents making their own arrangements reported satisfaction with those arrangements, while the satisfaction rate under court orders fell to 61% (resident parents) or 35% (non-resident parents). Unsurprisingly therefore, much of the consultation and recommendations were about ways of avoiding court proceedings including in particular mediation and better provision of information to separating parents. But for those cases that do go to court widespread concern was expressed by a number of groups, including the judiciary, that the court's powers to promote and enforce contact orders were too restricted.

To read the rest of this article, see October [2010] Family Law journal (link for online subscribers who have logged in). To log on to Family Law journal Online or to request a free trial click here.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law

Family Law is the leading practitioner journal, ensuring all family law professionals keep up with the latest developments and their impact on practice. Each issue contains the latest news of legislative change, authoritative case reports, invaluable articles and news items written and compiled by experts for the practising family law professional.

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