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...
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
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...
View all articles

CONTACT/SPECIFIC ISSUE ORDER: Re F (Contact) [2007] EWHC 2543 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Slug : re-f-contact-2007-ewhc-2543-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : 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.

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