expert, professional, friendly…

"Our newsletters and news articles are regularly updated to ensure you are kept up to date with legal news and developments"

news

  • judge-priestley

    Free newsletters

    Sign up to receive regular legal news updates

    more >

  • judge-priestley

    Send us an enquiry

    Send us a message and we will contact you straight back

    more >

Fresh evidence gives father new hope for contact with his son

A father who has been prevented from seeing his 12-year-old son has been allowed to seek a fresh investigation into the case after new evidence from a doctor and child welfare officer became available.

The father had previously accepted that the boy should live with his mother but applied to the court for a contact order. A report by CAFCASS, the service that looks after the welfare of children in court proceedings, said the boy was opposed to having contact with his father.

The father submitted that the boy’s hostility was due to the mother’s influence.

The judge declined to grant the order on the basis that the mother agreed to promote contact voluntarily. He then made an order preventing the father from making a new application for a specified period.

Despite the voluntary arrangement, the relationship between the two parents deteriorated and the mother alleged that the father had broken an agreement that he would not see their son without her prior knowledge.

This meant the father could not see his son and was also prevented from making a fresh application for contact because of the prohibition order.

He then took the case to the Court of Appeal saying fresh evidence had emerged which could help his case. This included reports by a doctor and a CAFCASS officer which showed the father in a more positive light. The Appeal Court said the fresh evidence meant the father should be allowed to apply for a fresh judicial investigation into the case.

Please contact us if you would like more information about contact orders or any issues relating to family law.

 

July 2010

The views expressed in this article are those of the article contributors, for which Judge & Priestley LLP accepts no responsibility. Readers should take appropriate legal advice before acting on any issues raised