header-logo header-logo

Making contact work

05 February 2016 / Camilla Fusco
Issue: 7685 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Camilla Fusco provides guidance for putting in place successful contact arrangements

Most family law practitioners will have experience of making applications for child arrangement orders (CAOs) which regulate the arrangements concerning whom a child will spend time with and when (formerly contact). However, advising clients about the most effective remedies for enforcement of such orders (referred to here as “contact orders”) can be far more difficult. This article examines the powers and sanctions available to the court in contact cases.

Background

The family courts have faced criticism from some as being slow to enforce court orders in child contact cases. Often the concern for judges (and clients) is that the enforcement route may increase the level of conflict and impact adversely on the child. A report published in December 2013 by Exeter University entitled Enforcing contact orders—problem-solving or punishment? (Liz Trinder, Joan Hunt, Alison Macleod, Julia Pearce, Hilary Woodward) analysed a nationally representative sample of 215 enforcement applications and reached some interesting conclusions:

  1. Although the public perception is that enforcement problems stem from implacably hostile mothers
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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll