header-logo header-logo

Family

04 April 2014
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

SMD v LMD [2014] EWHC 302 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 282 (Mar)

In determining a contact application the paramount consideration was the welfare best interests of the child. The starting point was that contact with a non-residential parent was generally in the best interests of a child. Any restriction on contact with a child but, especially, an order that there be no contact, direct or indirect, might only be justified on the basis of the most cogent and compelling evidence. When considering making an order for no contact; such an order should only be made where the court was satisfied that there was a serious risk of harm if contact were to be ordered. 

Orders pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 should be made with great care and sparingly. They might be made in the absence of a past history of unreasonable applications if there was clear evidence that the welfare of the child so required. In such a case the court had to be satisfied that the facts of the case went beyond

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll