header-logo header-logo

In the cross-fire

03 February 2017 / David Burrows
Issue: 7733 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Where now for domestic violence in family proceedings, asks David Burrows

  • How can the law be reformed fairly to protect those involved in family proceedings who have been subject to domestic violence while at the same time ensuring a fair trial?

​On 20 January 2017 The Guardian reported that: “Senior judges are taking steps to end the presumption that a father must have contact with a child where there is evidence of domestic abuse that would put the child or mother at risk.” Cobb J (Family Division) had said that the presumption in the family court that there should be “contact at all costs” with both parents must go where a parent’s involvement might place the child or other parent at risk.

On the same day Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, published his 16th View from the President’s Chambers Children and vulnerable witnesses—where are we? and Cobb J’s report (dated 18 November 2016), to which is annexed a proposed family proceedings practice direction (PD12J: Child arrangements & contact order:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Partner joins as lead of international tax desk

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

International arbitration partner joins disputes team in London

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Firm celebrates strong retention and new talent across practice areas

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
back-to-top-scroll