When parents separate there are always difficult decisions to be made , such as where any children will reside, what contact will take place and who has Parental Responsibility (PR ). These are some of the key issues to be negotiated in Julia’s case. This negotiation will identify the best agreement in the children’s best interests.
Julia and Charles have made conflicting applications for court orders. The court has the power to order a child arrangement, prohibited steps and specific issue orders under the Children Act 1989. In any negotiations, the children’s welfare should be the paramount consideration. The welfare checklist determines a child’s welfare thus, criteria from this checklist will regularly be referred to.
The first issue …show more content…
This is the same as the original arrangement because this did work well and promoted the children’s welfare. The arrangement only broke down because Julia stopped contact after an incident where Charles made Cordelia cry. Moreover, Julia would ‘agree to going back to the every other weekend ’. Holidays should also be split equally; Julia and Charles would have to be as flexible as possible and co-operate with each other . It is worth noting that this arrangement order will not affect either party’s PR …show more content…
Also, Julia should not have to talk to Charles any communication should be via email.
Thirdly, Julia is seeking a prohibited steps order to prevent Charles taking the children to Turkey for the summer. This is an understandable request of Julia and should be awarded particularly considering there is an abduction risk. This negotiation is reasonable as Charles is free to take the children on holiday within the UK with Julia’s permission. Charles PR does not give him the right to take the children abroad without the permission of Julia so, it is likely the order will be approved.
Lastly, Charles is seeking a specific issue order to change the children’s school, this counteracts with Julia’s prohibited steps application to prevent Charles changing their school and religion. It is in the children’s best interests to not move from a school that they are settled and ‘thriving at’. Under the welfare checklist this would damage their educational needs and friendship ties they have already established. The children do not want to move and consequently, this order is unlikely to be granted. Of course, if the child arrangement order was firstly awarded in Charles favour then the only suitable outcome would be changing schools to be closer to
Julia and Charles have made conflicting applications for court orders. The court has the power to order a child arrangement, prohibited steps and specific issue orders under the Children Act 1989. In any negotiations, the children’s welfare should be the paramount consideration. The welfare checklist determines a child’s welfare thus, criteria from this checklist will regularly be referred to.
The first issue …show more content…
This is the same as the original arrangement because this did work well and promoted the children’s welfare. The arrangement only broke down because Julia stopped contact after an incident where Charles made Cordelia cry. Moreover, Julia would ‘agree to going back to the every other weekend ’. Holidays should also be split equally; Julia and Charles would have to be as flexible as possible and co-operate with each other . It is worth noting that this arrangement order will not affect either party’s PR …show more content…
Also, Julia should not have to talk to Charles any communication should be via email.
Thirdly, Julia is seeking a prohibited steps order to prevent Charles taking the children to Turkey for the summer. This is an understandable request of Julia and should be awarded particularly considering there is an abduction risk. This negotiation is reasonable as Charles is free to take the children on holiday within the UK with Julia’s permission. Charles PR does not give him the right to take the children abroad without the permission of Julia so, it is likely the order will be approved.
Lastly, Charles is seeking a specific issue order to change the children’s school, this counteracts with Julia’s prohibited steps application to prevent Charles changing their school and religion. It is in the children’s best interests to not move from a school that they are settled and ‘thriving at’. Under the welfare checklist this would damage their educational needs and friendship ties they have already established. The children do not want to move and consequently, this order is unlikely to be granted. Of course, if the child arrangement order was firstly awarded in Charles favour then the only suitable outcome would be changing schools to be closer to