header-logo header-logo

24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family

Re T (a child)(murdered parent: contact between child and perpetrator), [2011] All ER (D) 151 (Mar)

Pursuant to s 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare had to be the court’s paramount consideration. When considering an application for contact by a parent who had been violent towards the other parent, the starting point was that there should not be any presumption that, on proof of domestic violence, the offending parent had to surmount a prima facie barrier of no contact.

As a matter of principle, neither domestic violence of itself, nor murder, could constitute a bar to contact. Murder or domestic violence were one of the factors in the difficult and delicate balancing exercise of discretion. That exercise had to begin with a welfare checklist analysis.

In cases of proved domestic violence, as in cases of other proved harm or risk of harm to the child, the court had the task of weighing in the balance the seriousness of the domestic violence, the risks involved and the impact on the child against the positive factors (if

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll