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
Authors

CARE/CONTACT: Re H (Termination of Contact) [2005] EWCA Civ 318

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : re-h-termination-of-contact-2005-ewca-civ-318
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 2, 2005, 10:57 AM
Article ID : 88445

(2 February 2005; Thorpe, Potter and Sedley LJJ; Court of Appeal) [2005] 2 FLR 408

The local authority care plan for the children provided for adoption. No adopters had yet been identified. There was expert evidence which supported continuing contact with the parents as not detrimental to the interests of the children. The judge refused the authority's application under Children Act 1989, s 34(4) for termination of contact for a period prior to the planned adoption. Notwithstanding the local authority's practical concerns, the judge had been entitled to refuse to terminate contact with the parents. The function of the judge in granting s 34(4) orders restrictively and stringently was an important one. The judge was applying the relevant principles impeccably in questioning the appropriateness of such a powerful order for such an uncertain and limited future use.

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