This is a judgment of Mrs Justice Theis DBE highlighting the critical need for local authorities to properly understand and fulfil their statutory obligations regarding adoption support assessments and plans. ​
Mr Justice Trowell Upholds Adoption Orders, and refuses birth mother’s Application to Set Aside and Seek Contact. ​
This was a decision of a Circuit Judge sitting in the Family Court of Watford. In particular, the judgment was as a consequence of a contempt hearing on 03 January 2025 in respect of an Occupation Order made under Section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996.
The court was concerned with an application by the birth mother of a child. She applied for direct contact with the child who has been adopted. The application was opposed by the adopter and this position was supported by the local authority and child’s guardian.
District Judge Bishop handed down judgment following a Father’s (F) application for contact with his 8-year-old child (C). The Mother (M) issued cross-applications for C to live with her, to restrict F’s ability to exercise his parental responsibility, for no contact between F and C, and for a s91(14) order to last until C is 18. M also sought findings in relation to alleged breaches of F’s Restraining Order.
The Court of Appeal upholds Calderdale as the designated authority following a dispute with Cheshire Council over the designation of the local authority responsible for a baby boy, G, in care proceedings. ​
Lord Justice Moylan gave the lead judgment in respect of this appeal heard in the Court of Appeal. The judgment subject to the appeal was a judgment delivered on 08th August 2024 dismissing the mother’s application for the summary return of one child, aged 15 to the jurisdiction of Romania pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention.
This was a contested 1980 Hague Convention case, concerning a 13 year old child. The application was for a summary return to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
This was a contested 1980 Hague Convention case. The applicant sought the return of two children to the jurisdiction of Poland. The children were aged 9 and 5.
The High Court explored the issue of procedural fairness and the concept of justice being seen to be done, in circumstances where the father had significant interactions with counsel for the mother prior to the hearing, including sending counsel a brief in expectation of instruction.
In London Borough of Richmond v Sally, Bob, Simon, Jane & Peter [2024] EWFC 335 (B), His Honour Judge Willans determined the care arrangements for two children, Jane and Peter.
Mr Justice Poole considers the evidential considerations that are relevant to the making of an International Special Guardianship Orders. Additionally, the judgment considers the procedural implications of the making of an international SGO, particularly in relation to immigration matters.
The court was concerned with one child, B. The parties were the mother and the father. The judge outlined the important background from paragraph 1. The parents are first cousins and M was brought up in Pakistan. They married in 2008.Â
The local authority issued care proceedings on 07th August 2024 and on 17th September 2024 they applied for leave to make a wardship application and the next day, the local authority applied to withdraw the care proceedings (paragraphs 8 and 9).
This judgment relates to a contested application pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention. The judge presiding over the case was Ms Naomi Davey sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The judge was concerned with a child, 18 months old, referred to in the judgment as ‘AB’. The mother sought to defend the return on three basis: a) habitual residence, consent or subsequently acquiesced, and Article 13b.
A lengthy and complex fact-finding resulting in findings by HHJ Moradifar that the mother was responsible for the children’s horrific life experiences.
