Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Applicant appeared in person The First Respondent appeared in person Mr Peter Rothery (instructed by McAlister Family Law Solicitors) for the Second and Third Respondents Meena Phull (of the Government Legal Service) for the Fourth Respondent and Intervenor Hearing dates: 24 May 2021 ____________________
In light of this position, at the hearing on 23 March 2021 HHJ Singleton QC joined the Governor of the prison in which the father is serving his sentence as a party to the proceedings.
i) The father was subject to restrictions defined within a Sexual Offences Preservation Order dated 22 February 2013 prohibiting him from having any contact with any child of the family under 18 without approval of any supervising local authority or further order.
ii) The order of Her Honour Judge De Haas QC of 18 May 2021 remained in force but was ambiguous. The mother had not complied with the terms of the order of Her Honour Judge De Haas QC of 18 May 2021 in that she had not written to the prison authority with a request that there be no further contact by the father with her, the children and the maternal grandmother and it was unclear if this constituted a breach of the order.
iii) A lack of clarity as to the manner in which letterbox contact would be managed in circumstances where the local authority would not undertake that role and the prison did not have the requisite skills to act as an independent third party for the transmission of indirect contact.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.