Case Summaries

Ex tempore judgment refusing application for permission to appeal placement order with plan for adoption, concerning a child, J.

Mr Justice Keehan dismissed the applicant’s request for multiple declarations to be made by the court relating to his father’s birth and death and his parents’ marriage.

This important judgment illustrates the effect of a child arrangements order on a child’s looked-after status.

The appeal of B v G [2026] EWHC 2668 (Fam) sets out important factors to be considered prior to making an application to appeal. The applicant mother was represented by Ms Julie O’Malley of counsel, and the respondent father was represented by Ms Catharine Langley of counsel.

David Rees KC ordered the summary return of a child (“AL”) to Spain under the 1980 Hague Convention, rejecting the Mother’s Article 13b defence. It was held that the expert evidence fell short of establishing a real risk of suicide, and that concerns regarding allegations of domestic violence were ameliorated by protective measures.

This was a decision of The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick, primarily concerning Z’s application to set aside an order for service out of the jurisdiction, and A’s applications for maintenance pending suit and a legal services payment order.

Application made by K (the Applicant) for permission to bring committal proceedings against former wife and mother of his children (J, First Respondent) and J’s brother’s former partner (L, Second Respondent) for fabricating evidence in support of J’s application for a non-molestation order against him. The parties appeared before The Honourable Mrs. Justice Lieven.

Mr Simon Colton KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, confirmed that withheld information in forced marriage protection proceedings should continue to be withheld from the parents in linked care proceedings for a short period.

Ms Justice Henke determined the final care proceedings concerning two children, Q and M, addressing the unconscionable delay that occurred during the proceedings.

A father (‘F’) applied for permission to disclose to the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) documents filed by the mother (‘M’) in financial proceedings under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’). On an undertaking by M to file and serve any immigration application she might make, McKendrick J adjourned F’s application.

HHJ Vincent determined the single issue of where the child, D, should attend secondary school. The mother seeks for D to go to an independent school, which she will solely fund, whilst the father wishes D to attend the local state school.

This matter was a rehearing of the mother’s (“M”) application for permission to relocate with C, aged seven, to State A in the Middle East. The proceedings had been lengthy and highly contentious. M’s application was initially refused at first instance, but she successfully appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, leading to this rehearing.

District Judge Anthony considered a mother’s application to relocate her six-year-old daughter from Nottingham to Scotland, opposed by the father who sought a shared care arrangement.

This judgment highlighted the internal failings to disclose crucial medical records and information regarding investigations into B’s injuries. Mr Justice Jones KC emphasised the importance of effective multi-agency information sharing, and timely disclosure, particularly of updating medical records.

Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed an appeal by the mother against a Child Arrangements Order transferring the child’s residence to the father.

HHJ Stephen Smith refused an application by the father to appeal against an order ending a shared care arrangement.