Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
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...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
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