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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
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....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

WELFARE HEARING: TB v DB (No 2) [2013] EWHC 2275 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:11 PM
Slug : welfare-hearing-tb-v-db-no-2-2013-ewhc-2275-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 1, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103245

(Family Division, Michael Keehan QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, 26 April 2013)

Following the judgment of [2013] EWHC 2274 (Fam) the judge carried out a welfare determination in respect of the 5-year-old child. The child currently spent the majority of his time living with his mother under a shared residence order. The father, supported by the children's guardian, now sought a sole residence order in his favour with contact provision to the mother.

If the shared residence order could be made to work that would be in the child's best interests. It would mean that he would remain living for the majority of his time with his mother, attend his current school, maintain his current friendships with friends at school whilst enjoying regular contact with his father and his paternal family and friends. Changing those arrangements and ordering sole residence to the father carried some risk: a risk that he did not understand why he did not live with his mother; a risk that he would not settle at the new school close to the father's home; a risk that he may not make new friends; a risk that he may be unsettled by the new arrangements.

The guardian's clear and strong recommendation was that the child was at an age and was of a character where he could change school and adapt without any medium to long-term harm.

The judge was in no doubt that the appropriate course was to discharge the shared residence order and make a sole residence order in the father's favour. He had no confidence that if the shared residence order remained in force, that the mother would not make some sort of allegation against the father in order to bring the matter back to court and the relationship between the father and child would once more be disrupted.

 

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