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...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles

CARE: Re H (Care Order: Contact) [2008] EWCA Civ 1245

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : re-h-care-order-contact-2008-ewca-civ-1245
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 25, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85073

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Lloyd LJJ; 25 September 2008)

The mother had a number of conditions that meant she required care. After the parents' separation, allegedly as a result of domestic violence, the mother refused to allow the father contact with the child, refusing to comply with court orders for contact. A few months after the separation the mother also ended contact between the child and the maternal grandmother, who until then had played a significant part in the child's life, not least because of the mother's health problems. The mother increasingly associated herself with a man who may have been related to her, and with whom she had a violently emotional relationship. The child was removed because of concerns about the violent disagreements between the man and the mother in front of the 9-year-old child. The child was placed with a temporary foster mother; the local authority proposal was that she should return to the mother on condition that the child had no contact with the man. The mother refused to accept this condition, and the local authority developed a care plan for long-term fostering. The child, now 10, was still expressing a strong desire to be reunited with the mother with whom, it was accepted, the child had a strong relationship. The child was also still refusing to have any contact with the father or the maternal grandmother. However, the judge made a care order, on the basis of a care plan for long-term fostering. He found that the child had suffered significant harm as a result of the mother's refusal to allow contact with either the father or the maternal grandmother. He also found that the child had been exposed to violent behaviour and threats by the mother and by the man, although these had resulted in a risk of emotional harm, rather than a risk of physical harm.

The judge had failed to consider the child's wishes in the light of both her age and her understanding. More importantly, the judge had failed to refer to the child's need to maintain the very significant relationship with and attachment to the mother. The judge ought to have taken on board the child's depth of feeling. The judge had erred in failing to perpetuate the fundamental importance of a relationship and a life with a parent if at all possible. There was no evidence that the child would begin to have contact with the grandmother and the father if she remained in care. The care order was to be replaced by a residence order to the mother, but with a supervision order for 12 months. If the man's influence continued to cause harm, that might be a reason for coming back to court.

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