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
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
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