Case Summaries

This is H’s application before Sir Jonathan Cohen to strike out W’s application to set aside a financial remedy order made by Mostyn J on 25th January 2022.

A father sought permission to appeal care and placement orders in respect of his daughter, T, on the basis that since the final hearing he has been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder.

This case concerns the defence of consent under Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother had removed the children from America, and it was accepted that, without the consent of the father, the mother’s departure from the children in June 2023 would be a wrongful removal.

This was an appeal conducted in the High Court. The court was concerned with three children, one aged 14, the second aged 12 and the third aged 8. The judge described them being ‘the subject of prolonged proceedings which commenced as long ago as 2019, between the mother and the father following the breakdown of their marriage’ (paragraph 1).

PP v JP & Anor came before Mr Justice Hayden on 9, 10 and 24 October 2024. The proceedings concern the parties’ children, B and T who are respectively 14 and 13 years of age.

This judgment addresses the importance of specificity, precision and clarity in orders, particularly where a committal application is made. 

The Family Court explored the complexities of a fact-finding hearing regarding the source of a young child’s gonorrhoea infection, raising significant issues around inferences of abuse versus nonsexual transmission.

The High Court rules in favour of transferring jurisdiction of a care case relating to an 11-month-old child, S, from England and Wales to Norway under the 1996 Hague Convention.

A 13-year-old boy’s application for permission to apply for variation of s8 orders is considered and refused by a circuit judge.

This matter came before Mr Justice Trowell and arises out of a dispute from a planned co-parenting arrangement between the parties. He considered the welfare of primary carers and what it meant for the welfare of the child involved.

This was a hearing in the High Court, conducted by Mr Justice Cusworth. The court was concerned with an application for permission to appeal an order dated 31 May 2024. The application also related to, if permission is granted, for the substantive appeal.

This was a hearing conducted by Sir Andrew McFarlane P. The full background of the matter can be considered in an earlier case summary, in respect of the judgment of 28 June – Re HR (Parallel Child Abduction and Asylum Proceedings) [2024] EWHC 1626 (Fam).

In this matter, Mrs Justice Theis was faced with an application for a parental order under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008). There was cautious consideration of consent and public policy issues, described by the Court as another “cautionary reminder”.

In SD v MM [2024] EWHC 2593 (Fam), the High Court addressed the application of the 1980 Hague Convention on child abduction, specifically the Article 13(b) defence concerning “grave risk” of harm.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Baker giving the only judgment) allowed an appeal against HH Judge Wicks’ refusal to make placement orders in respect of two siblings aged 3 and 2. This case is significant as it underscores the evolving judicial approach towards open adoption and the court’s role in setting the template for post-adoption contact

HHJ Vincent considered a couple’s French PACS (i.e. a French civil union) and whether their dissolution was valid and capable of acknowledgement under UK law.