Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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