Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
CONTACT/SPECIFIC ISSUE ORDER: Re F (Contact)  EWHC 2543 (Fam)
Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Nov 6, 2007, 05:29 AM
Article ID :89075
(Family Division; Sumner J; 2 November 2007)
The court could not ignore the fathers remarks, his abuse, his contempt for the mother, his repeated threats to take the children and his lack of regard for court orders, freely acknowledged by him. The lives of the mother and the children had been gravely disturbed by the fathers actions; they had had to leave their home and go into hiding. The children required safeguards to avoid further disruption to their lives. A change of surname was justified in this case, in that it provided some extra protection against abduction, adding to the childrens welfare. Continuing contact, even supervised, was not at the current time in the childrens best interests. The judge made a s 91(14) order for 2 years to protect them from hopeless applications for residence, un-warranted applications without notice and relentless abuse and threats; the court was looking for change in the father.