Case Summaries

Deputy High Court Judge Powell rules that Parental Responsibility Void Ab Initio for Non-Biological Father mistakenly named on Birth Certificate

A judgment of Ms Justice Henke reinforcing the principles highlighted in the CoA case of Re M 2024 and High Court case of LB Enfield 2024, emphasising the need for a thorough welfare evaluation, but most importantly the need for timely determinations, and prioritising the child’s best interests in care proceedings.

This judgment is a continuation of the first judgment which dealt with the issue of a committal following financial remedy proceedings. This aspect of the judgment deals with the issue of sentencing, following upon the judges finding that the respondent was in contempt of court. 

This was an application heard by the district judge for the committal of a respondent to financial remedy proceedings.

The Court of Appeal heard whether it was lawful to anonymise the names of the three judges who presided over historic family proceedings regarding Sara Sharif, a young girl tragically murdered by her father and stepmother in August 2023, and her siblings.

District Judge Gorman ordered indirect contact only for a father who had applied for child arrangements but failed to fully engage in the proceedings.

This was a judgment by Mrs Justice Arbuthnot sitting in the High Court, Family Division. The court was concerned with an urgent application relating to C, who was aged 17. The applicant seeks a declaration that it is lawful and in C’s best interests to be given life-saving insulin medication against her wishes. 

Lord Justice Baker provided the lead judgment in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court rejected the appeal by the father in respect of a committal order made by Peel J.

Before HHJ Hesford in The Family Court at Crewe and Chester.

This was Father’s (F) application for an urgent Child Arrangements Order to relocate A (the child) to live with him. The application responded to the Mother’s (M) ongoing and escalating alienating behaviour.

The children’s guardian (CG) appealed against the order of HHJ Tolson in which he dismissed an application made by the mother (M) of child C to change C’s given name from one associated with a male person to one commonly used by persons of either gender.

In this matter, Mrs Justice Judd was faced with an application for a parental order under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. It is thought to be the first reported case concerning a surrogate’s incapability of giving an agreement pursuant to s54(7) HFEA.

Successful application to strike out a nullity petition

Although the Court of Appeal found that procedural unfairness in respect of one of the findings did not vitiate the judge’s conclusions at a fact-finding. The parents’ appeals were dismissed. The judgment illustrates the relationship between expert evidence and other evidence forming the “wider canvas”.

The High Court was concerned with the father’s application pursuant to Article 21 Hague Convention.

This judgment arises out of a contested hearing heard before Mr Justice Cusworth in the High Court. The court was concerned with a father’s C66 application dated 3 September 2024 for the summary return of X (born on 10 March 2024) to a non-Hague country pursuant to the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court.

This judgment arises out of a contested international relocation case heard by HHJ Vincent sitting in the family court of Oxford. The judge was concerned with two children (provided with fictional names in the anonymised judgment).