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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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...
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...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Re P (Contact) [2008] EWCA Civ 1431

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : re-p-contact-2008-ewca-civ-1431
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 8, 2009, 08:35 AM
Article ID : 88647

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Stanley Burnton LJJ and Sir William Aldous; 12 November 2008)

Following the couple's separation there were protracted proceedings concerning the children's residence and the contact arrangements. At a fact-finding hearing the judge found that there had been domestic violence by the father, but also that this was a father who 'could offer so much to his children'. Direct contact was ordered, but after a dispute between the parents, to which the police were called, contact lapsed for a while before resuming at a contact centre. Eventually the trial judge found that the children were so worried about unsupervised contact with the father that they wanted to end direct contact with him. The judge made orders providing for indirect contact, but commented that counselling would be helpful, and that he would be willing to hear submissions about that route and amend his order if necessary. The father appealed.

The court was concerned that the true underlying issue had not been fully or properly dealt with; the court could not be satisfied that the judge had grappled with all the alternatives open to him, the most obvious of which was to explore fully the possibility of the couple undertaking some form of counselling.The judge should not have made the order until he had heard submissions concerning counselling. The matter should be reheard.

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