header-logo header-logo

24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family

Re T (a child)(murdered parent: contact between child and perpetrator), [2011] All ER (D) 151 (Mar)

Pursuant to s 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare had to be the court’s paramount consideration. When considering an application for contact by a parent who had been violent towards the other parent, the starting point was that there should not be any presumption that, on proof of domestic violence, the offending parent had to surmount a prima facie barrier of no contact.

As a matter of principle, neither domestic violence of itself, nor murder, could constitute a bar to contact. Murder or domestic violence were one of the factors in the difficult and delicate balancing exercise of discretion. That exercise had to begin with a welfare checklist analysis.

In cases of proved domestic violence, as in cases of other proved harm or risk of harm to the child, the court had the task of weighing in the balance the seriousness of the domestic violence, the risks involved and the impact on the child against the positive factors (if any), of contact between the parent found to have been

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll