header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010 / Claire Devine
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Under orders

Claire Devine expands on why s 91(14) orders should be issued sparingly

In the Court of Appeal case of Re A (Contact: Section 91(14)) [2010] 2 FLR 151, the child in question was aged four years and seven months. The child’s parents were never married but the father had parental responsibility by virtue of his name being entered on the birth certificate. The child lived with his mother but had substantial contact with the father. There were difficulties with the contact arrangements and proceedings were issued. The application to the Court of Appeal resulted from an order made in the Nottingham County Court on 28 September 2009 in which an order was made, inter alia, under the Children Act 1989, s 91(14) providing that no further applications could be made without leave in respect of the child for 18 months.

Case history

The father and the mother separated in May 2007. Initially, contact was dealt with by consent. Proceedings were, however, commenced on the father’s application in March 2008 following difficulties as to the

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll