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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
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...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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