Can my ex stop me from seeing my child?
Unless the contrary is shown, the court presumes that parental involvement in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare. This does not dictate any particular division of time but reinforces the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both parents after family separation, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests.
Your ex-partner should not, therefore, stop you from seeing your child unless there are welfare reasons to do so. If they do, you can ultimately apply to the Court for a Child Arrangements Order which will set out who the child will live and spend time with. You ex- partner may be viewed unfavourably if they have unjustifiably stopped you seeing your child. In the interim, try and come to some kind of agreement with your ex in order to maintain contact with your child even if that is supervised contact via a trusted third party like a grandparent or a friend or indirect contact via Zoom, Skype or Facetime. You should also ensure that your child does not get placed in to the middle of any arguments between you. Consider using parenting tools now available online such as Our Family Wizard and amicable co-parenting.
Tensions can often run high when a relationship breaks down. You should consider what arrangement is in the best interests of your child. If you are unable to reach an agreement with your ex about child arrangements, you should speak to a Family Solicitor or use an alternative dispute resolution service such as mediation or family therapy before issuing Court proceedings.
Related FAQs
Matrimonial assets tend to be those which have been generated or accumulated during the marriage whereas non-matrimonial assets tend to be assets which are acquired outside of the marriage such as assets owned before marriage or assets received by one party during the marriage without contribution from the other such as through inheritance or a gift.
The discretion of the court when making financial awards is wide ranging and the way the court will deal with this distinction varies from case to case so it is always important to seek advice about your particular circumstances. However, in broad principles, any asset which is “matrimonial” in nature is usually shared unless there is good reason not to. If an asset is non-matrimonial, an argument could be raised that there ought to be a departure from an equal share of the asset to reflect the fact it is from a source external to the marriage. However:
- If financial resources are limited such that a party’s needs cannot be met without using the non-matrimonial property, the fact it is non-matrimonial will carry little weight, if any.
- The family home is seen as core to the marriage and is often treated differently. It is invariably treated as a matrimonial asset even if it would have been non-matrimonial in nature.
- If a non-matrimonial asset has been intermingled with a matrimonial asset, a court may place less weight on the fact it started as non-matrimonial in nature.
- If the parties were married for a short period of time, a court may place greater weight on the fact that an asset is non-matrimonial and may be persuaded to allow a greater departure from equality than if the parties have been married for a long period of time.
The court will always have a mind to fairness and is likely to take a step back and consider whether the overall division of the assets is “fair” bearing in mind the parties respective financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage.
Yes, but as a last resort. In summary, the law requires employers:
- to assess the workplace risks posed to new or expectant mothers or their babies;
- to alter the employee’s working conditions or hours of work to avoid any significant risk to them;
- where it is not reasonable to alter working conditions or hours, or would not avoid the risk, to offer suitable alternative work on terms that are not “substantially less favourable”;
- where suitable alternative work is not available, or the employee reasonably refuses it, the employer should consider whether it is appropriate to suspend the employee on full pay.
The CMA sees only limited circumstances in which a full refund would not be given. The CMA accepts that where public health measures prevent a business from providing a service or the consumer from receiving it, the business may be able to deduct a contribution to the costs it has already incurred in relation to the specific contract in question.
This view reflects a relatively complex area of law under which parties are released from obligations under a contract if performance of that contract becomes impossible or illegal. This is called “frustration” of the contract. Under a law passed during World War II, a party to a contract that is frustrated who has incurred expenses is permitted, if the court thinks fit, to retain an amount up to the value of those expenses out of any money they have been paid by the other party.
The CMA’s view, however, is that this will not happen often, and that deductions from deposits will be limited.
No. No action need be taken in relation to the demand but we would advise against presentation of a petition based upon any Statutory Demand issued between 1 March 2020 and the end of the restrictions. As you may be aware, with Winding Up there is no requirement to issue a Statutory Demand notice before proceeding so this is unlikely to create too many issues – click here to see whether you should issue petitions on other grounds.
There is nothing to prevent statutory demands being served at this time. However, there may be limited benefit as it cannot form the basis of a future winding up petition.
We identify when early intervention is required and request that the negligent party and their insurers comply with the Rehabilitation Code to provide an early assessment, followed by the necessary treatment as soon as possible. We regularly work with Rehabilitation Experts to ensure early intervention.