- Senior Lecturer, University of Portsmouthedit
This article presents findings from a case file review of post-separation parenting cases in England and Wales. It first outlines that jurisdiction's legal framework relevant to these cases, before providing an overview of the findings... more
This article presents findings from a case file review of post-separation parenting cases in England and Wales. It first outlines that jurisdiction's legal framework relevant to these cases, before providing an overview of the findings relating to the profile of the cases and their outcomes. It then describes the types of abuse most frequently encountered in these cases, and examines the attitude of the courts to post-separation abuse by looking at both interim and final court orders. The study finds that key legal provisions governing these cases are not being followed, with little understanding shown for the nature of post-separation abuse.
Research Interests:
The UK Supreme Court decision in G v G finally resolves a fundamental conflict in case law concerning the rights of children and abducting parents: Does an asylum application submitted by an abducting parent prevent the return of a child... more
The UK Supreme Court decision in G v G finally resolves a fundamental conflict in case law concerning the rights of children and abducting parents: Does an asylum application submitted by an abducting parent prevent the return of a child in child abduction proceedings? The answer is now, effectively, yes. The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where a parent has applied for refugee status but the child has not, if the child is listed as a dependent on the parent’s asylum claim, then the child can be ‘objectively understood’ as having sought asylum as well. Given that a person who has sought asylum cannot be returned to their home state where they fear persecution (refoulement), until their asylum claim has been determined, it follows that their dependent child could not be refouled either. In such circumstances, enforcing a return order for an abducted child via Hague Convention proceedings would violate the non-refoulement rule. Yet in making this decision, the Court also had to wrestle with practical problems involving the procedural overlap between the concurrent child abduction and asylum claims. Its approach to this problem represents the Supreme Court’s new-found expansive understanding of its role, thereby providing further proof of an ongoing shift in the UK constitutional order.
Research Interests:
This article presents the findings of a case file review of applications for child arrangement orders which were flagged as containing a risk of harm, and to which Practice Direction 12J was applicable. It begins by examining the... more
This article presents the findings of a case file review of applications for child arrangement orders which were flagged as containing a risk of harm, and to which Practice Direction 12J was applicable. It begins by examining the development of the present version of the Practice Direction and the obligations it places on courts to engage in risk management so as to ensure that any contact between a child and parent accused of harmful behaviour is safe. It then proceeds to outline the means by which the case file review was conducted, and discusses the outcomes of the 102 cases examined across three courts. It then moves to assess how fact-finding hearings are used, examining the circumstances in which they were ordered, circumstances in which holding such a hearing was rejected by the courts, and means by which they were avoided. It also highlights the interaction between fact-findings and other investigative tools at the courts' disposal such as welfare reports. It concludes by framing the results within the context of increasing pessimism caused by recent judicial statements about fact-findings and the impact of harm allegations on contact.