In a disputed contact case, the parties had agreed that their should be monitored interim access, and this was supported by the Court Welfare Officer. The magistrates declined to make an order fearing that this would delay the final order.
Held: The Justices had been wrong to refuse to make the order. Delay would principally affect issues as to the upbringing of the child. It was difficult to see how a monitored programme of contact could be detrimental to a child. There was no conflict with the need to make speedy decisions to protect a child, and the order would undoubtedly be better for the child before the hearing. The result of the magistrates’ refusal to make an order was that the child had lost four months of possible contact with his father.
Judges:
Ewbank J
Citations:
Times 08-Apr-1994
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Children
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.81719
