Hi all,

Just opening up a new thread (which anyone can do by the way) to hold the discussion on 91.14 and child contact.

So that arnie can have his "will F4J please stop jumping on things" thread back for his original topic.

Climbing on things.............
Thanks

Hi Gang

So that Arnie doesnt shout at me I have read the comments regarding the frequency of 91 (14) orders in his thread with interest and have posted my response here.

I would just like to make this point .... M4J members and members of other similar groups will come across 91(14) orders with frequency due to the nature of the membership - groups such as M4J et al will obviously attract numerous members who are subject to such orders. In my experience, the orders are extremely rare and only made in extreme cases as a measure of last resort.

However, rather than debate between ourselves, why don't M4J, or some other similar group ask a question of HM Courts Service under the Freedom of Information Act along these lines:

"Expressed as a percentage, in what proportion of private law Children Act cases is an order pursuant to section 91.14 Children Act 1989 (as amended) made against a) mother and against b) father."

We may then be able to have a reasoned debate on this topic and the results will show us whether there are a disproportionate amount of orders made generally or a disproportionate amount made against either parent. I find it easier to debate on topics such as this if real evidence, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, sets out the facts.

Amanda

91(14) are used for many reasons and should be used as a last resort. But my own experience they are applied for frequently and used inappropriately on numerous occasions with out merit.

When a 91(14) as a part of an order to stop all direct contact, than I feel that a proper and transparent risk assessment should be done on its impact and the chances of contact ever happening again between child and non-resident parent.

This is a similar process in freeing orders in Public Family Law – contact for identity purpose, etc..

This is currently not done, but MEDICAL research shows that an absence of over a year between parent and child lends to a substation of contact permanently.

91(14) are no bar to any application that has merit, but again the bar is set much higher for an application than a normal C1 children’s application.


Tim

In case posters don't know what a 91(14) is, it's an order imposed so that no future applications can be made under the Children Act 1989 without permission of the court. A s91(14) is used when litigants habitually commence legal proceedings or otherwise make unnecessary court applications 'Vexatious' litigants action legal proceedings for the purpose of annoying the defendant when there is no a reasonable prospect of success.