A separated couple came before the Family Court with a single issue to be determined by the Court, i.e. should the mother be permitted to relocate from Buckinghamshire to Northumberland with the parties’ child, or should she be required to stay near the father’s home to promote a close relationship between the father and the child.
The Court of Appeal, Peter Jackson LJ giving the lead judgment and Baker LJ dissenting, dismissed an appeal against a decision by HHJ Willans (sitting as DHCJ) not to hold a fact-finding hearing to determine the cause of death of the mother’s first child.
This short judgment concerned an application in relation to a 7 year old girl, C, by her father, A, to prevent the Local Authority from being permitted to seek that C receive her routine childhood vaccinations.
This was an application for judicial review ‘of an Occupation Order made by HHJ Oliver on 8 July 2024 in the context of extensive Family Court proceedings involving a dispute between the Claimant and the first interested party and concerning the welfare of their young son’.
This hearing related to a judgment provided by Mr Justice MacDonald as to whether the parents of the subject person, termed as ‘M’ should be given notice of the proceedings.
The applicant husband was employed as a telecommunications IT Engineer for well-known companies through his own umbrella company, and the respondent wife was employed in various roles within the executive agencies of the civil service.
This judgment was delivered by His Honour Judge Guite sitting in the Family Court and Lancaster. The court was concerned with the welfare of two children, AC who was 17 years of age and BC who was 12 years of age who were subject to an application for public law orders by Lancashire County Council. Â
This was an unsuccessful appeal by the mother from the Lay Magistrates on 17th December 2024. The mother appealed the court’s decision to order a joint lives with order in respect of both parents. The mother sought a lives with order in her favour.
The key issue for the court in this case was whether the father had acquiesced to the child continuing to stay in England. If so, the mother’s defence would succeed, and the child would not be returned to New Zealand.
The father was committed to prison for six months for failing to return the child to England and Wales, refusing to renew the child’s passport, ignoring court orders for indirect contact with the mother and showing a pattern of disregard for court procedure and processes.
The High Court of Justice, Family Division, considered an application for summary return of a child to a non-Hague Convention country, Pakistan, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
This case concerns private children proceedings where findings were made against the father, resulting in no order for contact, removal of his parental responsibility and a Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 barring order. The remit of an existing Non-Molestation Order was also extended to include the children until they were aged 16 with a zonal provision for their respective schools.
The application before the court was for an adoption order of L who was 17.
This was a successful appeal of a spousal maintenance award before HHJ Farquhar that emphasised that the issue of double counting the capital value of a business and its income stream should not trump a party’s needs
This case concerns the wife’s application to exclude certain material from the husband’s open offer following a private FDR. Mr Justice Peel granted the application and ordered that the offending words be deleted.
Supreme Court rules that demonstrable intention and consistent treatment of assets over time determine whether property is matrimonial and subject to the sharing principle, irrespective of legal title.
