Case Summaries

A highly unusual, and extraordinarily complex, fact-finding hearing before Mrs Justice Arbuthnot in which the perplexing issue for determination was whether any children existed.

Hayden J summarises the law on parental responsibility for step parents and given reasons granting the order for one step-child but not the other.

The court was concerned an application submitted by the father seeking the child’s summary return to England from Scotland. The mother to the proceedings was born and raised in Scotland and the father was born and raised in England.

The Court of Appeal gave a judgement setting out what should be done if there was an appeal pending against a placement order and criticising the local authority for its conduct in arranging farewell contact and despite a stay matching the children with adopters.

This appeal concerns the legal parentage of X. When X was born her birth certificate was registered to reflect that P was X’s legal mother and Q was her second legal parent. Q was P’s wife at the time X was conceived. It was never in dispute that F is X’s genetic father.

This hearing, conducted by HHJ Vincent, addressed a relocation application.

This appeal serves as a reminder to PD12J paragraphs 36 and 37, the law in relation to appeals & admitting fresh evidence at an appeal.

This was a decision which allowed a Gillick competent 15-year-old who is subject to care order to change both her forename and surname.

Application by Wife (“W”) in financial remedy proceedings for committal of Husband (“H”) for failure to comply with orders to file Form E & CETV for his pension. Contempt proved & H sentenced to 19 days immediate imprisonment.

This was a contested 1980 Hague Convention case heard before Mr Justice Cobb in the High Court.  

This was a challenge under pursuant to Article 23, of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“The 1996 Hague Convention”).

This judgment is a decision of Mr Justice McDonald. A cautionary tale, warning professionals, lawyers and the courts against the [relentless] pursuit of further assessments in the face of clear [adverse] forensic evidence, which not only causes prejudicial delay for the child, but also amounts, ultimately, to cruelty masquerading as hope for the parent.

The Court of Appeal determined cross-appeals which concerned determination of (i) whether property is matrimonial and how it might become ‘matrimonialised’ and (ii) how to apply the sharing principle to matrimonialised property.  

A child of 16 was deemed beyond parental control after DM, who had cared for her, developed Alzheimer’s. It was decided that KM should remain in the UK under a care order while the Local Authority would support contact with KM’s previously estranged parents in a non-Hague Convention nation. An order under s.34(3) was not necessary.

The Court of Appeal set aside findings of fact on the basis of errors made by the judge in her approach to the research literature which had been filed, her making findings which went beyond those sought by any party and her treatment of the “wider canvas” points.

These were proceedings heard by HHJ Hayes KC. The application the court was considering was issued in the High Court and concerned one child named CB who was 10 months old