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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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