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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

SPECIFIC ISSUE ORDER: M v H (Educational Welfare) [2008] EWHC 324 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : m-v-h-educational-welfare-2008-ewhc-324-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 21, 2008, 06:14 AM
Article ID : 85047

(Family Division; Charles J; 21 February 2008)

Under a shared residence order the child lived with the mother in Germany; the father lived in England. The English court had retained jurisdiction in respect of the child's welfare. Following the mother's baptism as a Jehovah's Witness, it became apparent that the mother did not wish to promote the child's relationship with the father. The issue arose whether the child should attend full-time education in England or Germany.

The court had to identify what was most likely, if successful, to promote the short, medium and long-term welfare of the child, and then to see if that was a realistic possibility and how it was best to be achieved. The court had to be aware that it might have to take the path that reflected the least bad solution. It was in the interests of the child that she be able to continue and build her relationship with both parents; the least bad option was to order that the child attend school in England, on the basis that there was a higher risk that the mother would not promote the child's relationship with the father if the child attended school in Germany.

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