This case involved public law proceedings concerning six children. The Court was faced with a binary decision: whether the children should remain at home with their parents or be removed and placed in the care of the Local Authority.
HHJ Willans sitting as Deputy High Court Judge, determines that a Father Must Be Notified of the care proceedings Despite Allegations of Domestic Abuse
This case was reported on 13 June 2025 and was before DJ Knifton sitting at the Liverpool Family Court. The case was dealt with by way of submissions only. The parents’ were referred to in the judgment as the mother and the father.
An appeal by a father against refusal of his application for permission to apply for a s8 Children Act order in circumstances where a s91(14) order was in place. Appeal allowed by Trowell J due to a serious procedural irregularity.
The case was before Mr Justice Dexter Dias KC sitting as a Section 9 judge and it dealt solely with the issue of costs in private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
This is the Appellant’s application for costs, his appeal against the order of Francis J having been allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court for an assessment of his needs.
The case concerned two children born in Sierra Leone placed for adoption by their respective families.
This is two judgments of Mr Justice MacDonald in the High Court Family Division concerning the welfare of the child, Adam, and the serious litigation misconduct by his mother, including multiple abductions and the concealment of the child from his father and the authorities for a period of 8 months. The judgments have been published without anonymisation of the parties.
This case was before Recorder O’Grady who re-stated the key principles concerning whether to conclude a public law case at an Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH).
This case involved public law proceedings concerning a 17-month-old baby boy (F). The Local Authority were successful in their application for Care and Placement Orders, which were supported by the Father and the Guardian, but were ordered to pay the maternal grandmother’s costs due to their failure to contact and assess the child’s wider family.
This judgment addressed the issues of (a) whether the husband had transferred the shares and the land, thereby divesting himself of the assets, with the intent of defeating the wife’s matrimonial claim; and (b) what could be deemed marital assets and so, the award the court should make to the respondent wife.
Judgment following a Final Hearing on 5 September 2025 concerning the validity of a foreign marriage heard by Deputy District Judge Williams at Leicester Family Court.
MacDonald J dismissed a father’s appeal against a child arrangements order that departed from CAFCASS recommendations, reinforcing the broad judicial discretion to depart from expert welfare advice and the high threshold for appellate intervention in children proceedings.
This case is a powerful illustration of the court’s inherent authority to uphold the dignity of its proceedings, even in the face of hostility and disruption.
This was a judgment of HHJ Earley regarding an application by a child to discharge a Care Order that the Court had made ten months earlier. The Court dismissed the application and maintained the order, but in doing so made pointed comments regarding the local authority’s failures to implement the agreed care plan.
A decision of Mr Justice Peel addressing the question of whether the Husband (“H”) was entitled to refer to events which took place at a private FDR beyond those already provided for within the Family Procedure Rules (“FPR”). It was determined he was not.
