Balcombe LJ said: ‘But before concluding this judgment, I would like to make three general points. The first is that judges should be very reluctant to allow the implacable hostility of one parent (usually the parent who has a residence order in his or her favour) to deter them from making a contact order where they believe the child’s welfare requires it.The danger of allowing the implacable hostility of the residential parent (usually the mother) to frustrate the court’s decision is too obvious to require repetition on my part.’
Judges:
Balcombe LJ
Citations:
[1994] 2 FLR 729
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: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.241341
