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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

MS v MN [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:53 PM
Private law children – Contact – Domestic violence – Practice Direction 12J
The mother’s appeal from an order for direct contact between the father and child was allowed.
Slug : ms-v-mn-2017-ewhc-324-fam
Meta Title : MS v MN [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Private law children – Contact – Domestic violence – Practice Direction 12J
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 15, 2017, 10:06 AM
Article ID : 114122

(Family Division, Moor J, 2 February 2017)

Private law children – Contact – Domestic violence – Practice Direction 12J

The mother’s appeal from an order for direct contact between the father and child was allowed.

The parents of the, now 5-year-old, child separated in 2012 when the mother went into a refuge. There had been numerous allegations and counter-allegations ever since.

A fact-finding hearing took place in order to resolve the issue of direct contact with the father. A number of findings were made regarding violence perpetrated by the father and threats to kill the mother. The father’s appeal was dismissed.

On the issue of contact, despite the Cafcass report advising against direct contact the judge found that since violence had not been perpetrated against the child she was not at risk. A period of indirect contact was ordered followed by direct contact to be supervised or supported. The mother appealed.

The appeal was allowed. The judge directed that a s 7 risk assessment of the father should be completed and the matter remitted to the Family Court.

The judge below failed to consider Practice Direction 12J and his judgment did not address why it was right to permit direct contact at this time. The Cafcass officer had serious concerns regarding allegations of the father’s drug use and the fact that drug testing had not been completed yet. Further, given the findings of domestic violence and the father’s pattern of coercive control there was a high risk of future violence.


Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam)

Case No. No. ZC15P00920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice


Date: Thursday, 2nd February, 2017

Before:

MR. JUSTICE MOOR
(In Private)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


B E T W E E N :

M S
Appellant

- and -

M N
Respondent


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London. EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


MS. V. MILLER (instructed by Aitken Harter Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

THE RESPONDENT appeared in Person.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


J U D G M E N T 
(As approved by the Judge) 

MS v MN [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam).rtf


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports.
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Private Law Children
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from