Case Summaries

This is the second judgment in the matter. This previous judgment set out the facts, the background and the legal issues that were being considered in the context of defending a summary return application pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention.

Lord Justice Baker refuses a mother’s appeal against care and placement orders despite the potential devastating consequences to the sibling relationship.

Mr Justice Cusworth determined an appeal by the mother against an order for a Psychologist to undertake a family assessment, with provision for the expert to see the children (aged 11 and 7 years old) without or without either parent if deemed appropriate.

The applicant made an application pursuant to the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985(incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention) for the summary return of his son to Ukraine.

This was a contested 1980 Hague Convention case heard in the High Court.

Both parents challenged a finding made that when their child was a baby, she suffered a non-accidental head injury inflicted by either the mother or the father.

The Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s appeal against findings of fact made the judge in care proceedings in respect of W, an infant girl.

This case came before Ms Justice Henke in the High Court. It concerned an appeal against a Child Arrangements Order made in November 2023 in relation to two children; ‘HA’, who is 12, and ‘SJ’ who is 9. The hearing was in open court, subject to a Transparency Order.

This case came before Mr Justice Poole in the High Court, it concerns an application seeking permission for the claimant to bring contempt proceedings against the defendant under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 on the basis the defendant had shared confidential information relating to child arrangement proceedings.

This case was before Mr Justice Moor in the High Court. The judge was conducting a fact-finding hearing in relation to cross-allegations of domestic abuse.  The proceedings took place in the context of the father (referred to as ES) applying for contact of the two subject children, pursuant to an application under Article 21 Hague Convention 1980. 

This case concerned inherent jurisdiction proceedings which were before HHJ Middleton-Roy acting as a Judge of the High Court in April 2024.

This case concerned an application within Hague Convention proceedings by “R”, the step-father of “D” (14) and “K” (9). R applied for a) leave to withdraw his application for summary return of the children to New Zealand, where he resides, and b) recognition of rights of parental responsibility which he says were gifted to him in New Zealand under Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention. Richard Todd KC gave his permission for R to withdraw his application, but dismissed R’s application under Article 16.

In a case where both parties failed to provide full and frank disclosure, Recorder Rhys Taylor delivers a considered and structured judgment in which he makes an order for division of a UK property 64/36 in the husband’s favour.  No costs ordered where ordered and the court ultimately found that the “poor behaviour on each side is symbiotic.”

Appeal by father against an order for no direct contact is dismissed. Prior to the decision under appeal the father had been having regular, supervised contact with the child. This decision highlights the fine balance between upholding direct contact and preserving the stability of the placement of the child with the primary carer in the context of a relationship marked by Domestic Abuse and volatility.