M v M

The court determined that the mother should not be permitted to prevent the father from taking J to the voice trial, as the potential upset to J was minor and the opportunity for the father to pursue an application for change of school was significant. The welfare of J was best served by allowing the voice trial to proceed.

Parties: Applicant: M; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 December 2005
Procedural Posture: Family / Post Directions Hearing; Determination of Interim Application
Outcome: Application to prevent voice trial refused; previous order permitting voice trial upheld
Legal Topics: Child Welfare, Contact Orders, School Attendance, Parental Responsibility

Family Law Child Welfare Contact Orders School Attendance Parental Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Post Directions Hearing; Determination of Interim Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the father should be permitted to take the child J to a voice trial at the Cathedral School despite the mother's objections
2 Whether the mother can prevent the child from attending the voice trial
3 Consideration of the child's welfare as paramount

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to prevent voice trial refused; previous order permitting voice trial upheld

Orders

The Respondent mother shall make J available for a voice trial at the Cathedral School at the time and on the occasion fixed by the Cathedral School, the Applicant father’s notification of this being deemed good notice of the said voice trial.
The Respondent shall take no steps to stop J attending the said voice trial whether by informing the present school or by any other means.