header-logo header-logo

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

Taking sides

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll