Mumsnet has not checked the knowledge, experience or professional qualifications of anyone posting on Mumsnet Talk and cannot be held responsible for any advice given on the site. If you have any serious legal concerns, we would suggest you consult a lawyer.

Does a new court ordered replace previous one?

(5 Posts)
mumblechum1 Thu 06-Dec-12 18:49:16

Well then it's still in force. Of course he can just send photos of the children to the grandparents, aunts and uncles etc by private email.

smiler01 Thu 06-Dec-12 18:38:43

Oh I see ok, he represented himself so we wasnt really sure.

There wasn't any time limit just said the applicant agrees not to upload pictures on to social networking sites. It wasnt even mentioned this time.

Collaborate Thu 06-Dec-12 18:36:59

I agree with mumbles.smile

mumblechum1 Thu 06-Dec-12 18:05:23

I'd have to see the wording to check, but basically if he gave an undertaking not to upload pictures onto FB and there was no time limit, it's still in force.

If the court ordered him not do so in a directions order, and there was no time limit, then again he shouldn't upload any.

He needs to get his solicitor to double check the wording tbh.

smiler01 Thu 06-Dec-12 16:57:45

Just wondered if someone can clarify if new orders replace previous ones, there are no reference to previous orders made at all in the new one.

The reason I ask is the last order had a restriction on my partner uploading pictures on to his Facebook page, new order sorted out with new contact and the picture issues never came up so presumably the new order is the one that's now followed, he just wants to show his kiddies off cos it's been a long time trying to see them but he doesn't want to break any orders and it be used against him.

Is that correct?
Thanks

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now