header-logo header-logo

Taking sides

22 May 2015 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7653 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7653_herring

Jonathan Herring questions the family courts’ treatment of wilful children

A relationship breaks down. Acrimony fills the air. Accusations fly. The father says the mother is stopping the children from seeing him. The mother says the children don’t want to see their father, unsurprisingly given what he has done. The lawyers wade in and it’s off to court. What is a judge to do?

Basic legal principles

The family courts have been struggling to find the correct legal solution to such cases for decades. The basic legal principles are clear. The judge must make the order which will best promote the welfare of the child. In most cases that will mean the child will spend time with both parents. There is now an impressively large number of orders available to judges in cases of disputed contact ranging from imprisonment of a parent seen to be preventing the children seeing the other parent; to an order prohibiting a parent seeing a child. Increasingly courts will rely on therapists and mediators to fashion a solution. Many experts

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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