header-logo header-logo

13 November 2008
Issue: 7345 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

A new era for contact?

Will a new contact regime tame recalcitrant parents? asks Simon Blain

After a lengthy wait, Pt 1 of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 (CAA 2006) will come into force on 8 December 2008. The legislation sets out new powers of the court to make contact activity directions and contact activity conditions, together with new provisions for the enforcement of contact orders.

Contact activity directions
A contact activity direction can be made whenever the court is considering whether to make a contact order, or to vary or discharge an existing order. Contact arrangements must be in dispute between the parties, and the court cannot make such a direction when making a final contact order.

A contact activity direction is defined as “a direction requiring an individual who is a party to the proceedings to take part in an activity that promotes contact with the child concerned”. Examples would include parenting or anger management classes. The child’s welfare is the paramount consideration for the court when deciding whether to make such a direction. No party

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll