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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

RESIDENCE: Re A (Residence Order)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : re-a-residence-order
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 7, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85889

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Thomas LJJ and Coleridge J; 7 October 2009)

After the break down of the marriage the mother refused to allow contact between the father and the three children. During contact proceedings the mother alleged domestic violence and an assault by the father on one of the children. At a hearing the mother conceded that she would not be relying on the alleged domestic violence and stated that she was prepared to co-operate in establishing contact. Shortly afterwards she withdrew that concession. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing the judge, who regarded both parents as unreliable witnesses, dismissed the mother's allegation that the father had assaulted one of the children.

Shortly before the next hearing, the mother filed a statement in which she professed to accept generous contact to father, provided the court made a residence order in her favour. The judge concluded that she could not rely on the mother, and made a residence order in the father's favour.

The mother appealed, arguing that the judge had focused on the mother's true approach to contact, not on the risk of shifting the children's residence from the mother's home to the father's home and balancing that against the risks that would arise if the mother's proposals were endorsed.

Allowing the appeal, the assessment of the mother's true position in relation to contact had been important but not crucial.

Significantly, there had thus far been no attempt to introduce a contact regime. There was no clear history of the mother disregarding contact orders.

The transfer of residence was a weapon of very last resort. The judge's order had accordingly been premature, and too risky for the children.

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