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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

RESIDENCE: Re H (Contact Order)

Sep 29, 2018, 15:13 PM
Slug : residence-re-h-contact-order
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 19, 2010, 10:23 AM
Article ID : 84601

(Court of Appeal; Arden and Leveson LJJ and Sir Scott Baker;19 February 2010)

A couple separated shortly after birth of their disabled child and thereafter the mother was the sole carer of the baby. The father applied for contact and at the interim hearing the judge made a shared residence order, involving several episodes of contact with the father prior to the final hearing. The mother appealed.

The appeal was allowed. The judge had failed to take account of a number of important factors under the checklist. He had assumed that the father, a GP, had good parenting skills and had failed to give proper weight to the fact that the mother was the primary carer and was still breast feeding. The judge should have been concentrating on making an order that was as neutral as possible and that did not prejudice either side at the full hearing. The father was given two hours contact at a contact centre every two weeks, and two overnight stays per fortnight.

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