Family Court. Form C7, question 8
Family Court. Form C7, question 8
Author
Discussion

JumboBeef

Original Poster:

3,772 posts

206 months

Thursday 18th June 2020
quotequote all
Hello.

Some legal advice please. A divorced mum is the respondent and has received a C7 from her darling ex husband who is taking action to talk to his children on the phone (1) and to see the children as he hasn't seen them since March (2)

1: he talks to them already on a daily basis
2: he hasn't seen them because of lock down. He lives the other side of the country and can't stay over and the children are shielding because of health problems: they haven't seen anyone since March

Q8 has stumped us. It reads:

Q8: Do you intend to apply to the court for an order?

I think this means if she wants to apply for a second order in addition to the one he started. I feel the answer should be no as everything by both parties can be dealt with on the original order.

Am I correct?

Thanks.

Edited by JumboBeef on Thursday 18th June 17:12

JumboBeef

Original Poster:

3,772 posts

206 months

Sunday 21st June 2020
quotequote all
No one?

Exige77

6,523 posts

220 months

Sunday 21st June 2020
quotequote all
You’ve broken SP&L with that one

paintman

7,860 posts

219 months

Sunday 21st June 2020
quotequote all
Isn't one of them still on a temporary ban for upsetting snowflakes/offering help etc?

ETA Although I suppose you should consider yourself lucky some of the Walts haven't given you the benefit of their expertise.



Edited by paintman on Sunday 21st June 16:01

Camelot1971

2,851 posts

195 months

Sunday 21st June 2020
quotequote all
I know I always go to a car forum when I need serious legal advice on a non-motoring matter. rolleyes

JumboBeef

Original Poster:

3,772 posts

206 months

Monday 22nd June 2020
quotequote all
Camelot1971 said:
I know I always go to a car forum when I need serious legal advice on a non-motoring matter. rolleyes
I've been coming here for years, and this forum helped massively when I went though my child contact case.

It seems it has changed.