Category tags are only available from 2024 use the advanced search for older updates.
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).
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.
