The confused and contradictory position taken by Sir Nicholas Wall on 'Payne v Payne' is plainly highlighted in the comments section of the following link:
Now that Wall has retired, perhaps he will have the courtesy finally to give that full explanation.
Between February 2010 and July 2011, many so-called 'non-primary' parents had their children removed overseas due to the continued implementation of Payne v Payne, despite the fact that they had had 'shared care arrangements' in place.
These parents - of whom I am one - would be very grateful for a full and comprehensive explanation.
It may help us to come to terms with the loss of the meaningful relationship we once had with our children.
The confused and contradictory position taken by Sir Nicholas Wall on 'Payne v Payne' is plainly highlighted in the comments section of the following link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mckenziefriend.com/2010/04/27/your-numbers-up-payne-v-payne-time-for-change/
Even experienced family lawyers criticised Wall's illogical position and called for an explanation:
http://blog.taylorking.co.uk/category/children/leave-to-remove/
Now that Wall has retired, perhaps he will have the courtesy finally to give that full explanation.
Between February 2010 and July 2011, many so-called 'non-primary' parents had their children removed overseas due to the continued implementation of Payne v Payne, despite the fact that they had had 'shared care arrangements' in place.
These parents - of whom I am one - would be very grateful for a full and comprehensive explanation.
It may help us to come to terms with the loss of the meaningful relationship we once had with our children.
Regards
Bruno D’Itri