Waite LJ: ‘It is now well settled that the implacable hostility of a mother towards access or contact is a factor which is capable, according to the circumstances of each particular case, of supplying a cogent reason for departing from the general pronciple that a child should grow up in the knowledge of both his parents.
I see no reason to think that the judge fell into any error of principle in deciding as he clearly did on the plain interpretation of his judgment, that the mother’s present atitude towards contact puts D at serious risk of major emotional harm if she were to be compelled to accept a degree of contact to the natural father against her will.’
Judges:
Waite LJ
Citations:
[1993] 2 FLR 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In Re O (A Minor) (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) CA 17-Mar-1995
The court may impose detailed conditions on the form of indirect contact. His Lordship set out the relevant principles: ‘1 Overriding all else, as provided by section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child was the paramount . .
Cited – In Re P (Minors) (Contact) CA 15-May-1996
The father appealed an order refusing him direct contact with the child. The judge had made the order because he considered that the mother’s hostility to contact made it likely that her health would suffer if contact was ordered, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.241340