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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
View all articles
Authors

PUBLICITY: Re Z (Shared Parenting Plan: Publicity) [2006] 1 FLR 405

Sep 29, 2018, 16:34 PM
Slug : re-z-shared-parenting-plan-publicity-2006-1-flr-405
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 11, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85543

(Family Division; Hedley J; 11 August 2005)

The father had abducted the child at one stage in the proceedings and the case had been resolved by negotiation. Both parents consented to the discharge of previous orders and subsequent withdrawal of all applications for orders under the Children Act 1989 on the basis of a shared parenting plan. The case was adjourned into open court so that publicity could be given to the approach adopted in this case in the hope that it might commend itself to others as a basis for discussion and negotiation. There was one matter upon which the parties could not agree and that was whether the injunction regarding publicity should be lifted. The father wanted the injunction to be lifted entirely, the guardian wanted it to remain in place and the mother did not mind there being some publicity providing the child was not identified. The court held that the child's peace and freedom should outweigh the father's right to freedom of speech and that this is broadly reflected in the Children Act 1989, s 97. The open court proceedings were exempted from the injunction itself providing they were not used in such a way that the child could be identified. The court held that the injunction should continue until the child reaches 18 or another order of the court is made.

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