header-logo header-logo

19 February 2016
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

Q v Q (No 3) [2016] EWFC 5, [2016] All ER (D) 20 (Feb)

The Family Division refused the application by the father, a convicted sex offender for contact with his son as no method of managing the kind of dangers that a convicted sex offender like the father might pose even to his own son had been put before the court. The mother’s application for an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 would be refused as the present case was not one involving repeated applications. Nor had it displayed on the part of the father the kind of behaviour which, typically, founded a successful application for such an order.

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