Everyone who has been affected knows the scene. And all those who might be affected need to know.
Often, the first sign that something is awry is the delivery of a ‘NonMol’, as they are known. The terms vary, but they usually forbid communication with the other party, usually the mother, going within a range of her home or other places she might be. Sometimes this includes the school the children attend. Contact with our children is sometimes forbidden too, amongst other things.
Breaching a Nonmol is a criminal offence which involves immediate arrest. In the worst cases, the mother invites the father to discuss things, he responds, and gets taken into custody.
A Nonmol (if granted) qualifies the applicant for Legal Aid, so it is routinely used by lawyers and others as part of the adversarial game, to their advantage.
It – as the former President of the Family Division has pointed out - sets the tone of the rest of the proceedings as being one about harassment or worse.
‘Without notice’ (or ex-parte, in court-speak, the language used to prevent ordinary people understanding what is going on) is when the other party, in practice, the father, is not even told of the hearing.
Necessary in real emergencies, but now used routinely. ‘Twice blessed is he who knows his cause is just, thrice blessed is she (sic) who gets her blow in first’.
Put the word about, please. This High Court judgement deals with what circumstances there should be for such an order: LINK Mrs Justice Lieven [2023] EWFC 46, Birmingham Family Court 29/03/2023. A more readable summary by Clive Styles LINK
‘…...[They] should only be made in exceptional circumstances where there is a risk of significant harm…. must expressly deal with why the case is exceptional and what the significant risk is...There is no doubt that far too many such applications are made where there is no reasonable basis…..’
It is interesting that the cases that resulted in these comments were ones in which the bloke whose view Mrs Lieven upheld had not behaved well, but that had stopped three weeks before the application.
The Law states that the respondent (ie the target) must have ‘an opportunity to make representations...as soon as just or convenient’ . Tactically, worth raising that the ‘ex parte’ order was improperly granted?
Adversarial solicitors, however, will not want to hear of this ruling or conform to it.
What do you think?
Send us feedback!
