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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

RESIDENCE: Re R (A Child) [2009] EWHC B38 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : re-r-a-child-2009-ewhc-b38-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 6, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87691

(Family Division; HHJ Bond; 6 November 2009)

In a case in which the mother was extremely hostile to contact, and in which the 11 year old child was becoming increasingly hostile to the father as a result of the mother's approach, the court granted a residence order to the father and his wife, and made a contact order in the mother's favour, which was the result favoured both by the guardian and the expert psychiatrist. If the court were to act upon the child's expressed wishes, contact with the father would cease; although the court would listen to and take account of the child's views, they were not determinative. The child had made up his mind that he did not want to see the father when he was too young to make a considered decision. The father was able to meet the child's emotional needs, whereas the mother was unable to meet the child's emotional need for a relationship with the father. The child had already suffered significant emotional harm because of the mother's stance. While the move to the father's home carried with it a risk of harm, the greater risk lay in remaining with the mother, and losing touch with the father. A 'critical friend' invited by the guardian to assist the family had overstepped his role in asking the child direct questions about his relationship with the father.

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