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

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