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...
Latest articles
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...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, 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 misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
View all articles

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