Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

CARE/CONTACT: Re J (Representation: Fact-Finding Hearing) [2008] EWCA Civ 212

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : re-j-representation-fact-finding-hearing-2008-ewca-civ-212
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 12, 2008, 04:17 AM
Article ID : 86887

(Court of Appeal; Sir Mark Potter P, Hooper and Lloyd LJJ; 12 February 2008)

The father had no contact with the 17-month-old child; the mother opposed his application for contact on the basis that the father was a violent man and had raped her. Before the case was heard, the child was twice taken to hospital with what appeared to be non-accidental injuries. The local authority initiated care proceedings, which were consolidated with the contact proceedings. The mother claimed that her former partner was responsible for the injuries to the child, and he was joined as a party. However, the child was often in the care of the maternal grandmother, who was also joined, as a possible perpetrator. The mother obtained an order that, although both the local authority and the child's guardian were to be represented at a fact-finding hearing to investigate the rape allegations, neither the maternal grandmother nor the mother's former partner were to be present or legally represented.

Findings made or judgments formed in the course of the rape fact-finding hearing would affect the conduct of the care proceedings in a way that could adversely affect the grandmother's interests. The grandmother should be represented and could be present herself if she wished to be. The issue of both the mother's and the father's credibility was of potential importance to the grandmother's stance in the case as a whole; if the grandmother were acquitted of blame in relation to the non-accidental injuries, it was possible that she would offer herself as a potential carer for the child. Providing the grandmother with a transcript was insufficient. Once the local authority and the guardian were being represented, the addition of a lawyer for the grandmother was a peripheral consideration.

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