header-logo header-logo

Family

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

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll