In this recent case, the Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s appeal against a care order made in respect of her infant son, J. Baker LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Lewison and Andrews LJJ agreed.
In this case Williams J considered the application of a mother who sought the summary return of three children from England to Israel. The judgment was published in March 2024.
Mr Justice Moor considered an application for the committal to prison of a Respondent husband following breaches of orders in financial remedies proceedings.
These were proceedings that concerned 4 children, aged between 4 and 15.
The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by a local authority and found itself ‘confronted again with a case in which problems have arisen as a result of requests by the parties for clarification of the reasons given by the judge for her findings at the end of a lengthy fact-finding hearing’.
Henke J delivered a welfare judgment determining which parent a child (“U”) would live with.
In this judgement, Mr Justice Peel had to balance the very real risk the Mother posed as a potentially violent person against the Mother’s fundamental right to have access to justice in proceedings affecting her and the children profoundly.
This was a contested final hearing in respect of the applicant’s application pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention for a return of a child, referred to as ‘PZ’ to New Zealand.
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, heard by Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Lord Justice Baker. The order that was appealed was one of Mr Justice Francis sitting as a High Court Judge.
This was an application by the Peterborough City Council (“LA”) for a deprivation of liberty order (“DOLS order”) in respect of SM who is 12 years old with profound and enduring disabilities. Mrs Justice Lieven’s judgment set out that this case raises an important issue about the requirement for such an order in the case of a very severely disabled child such as SM.
Guidance as to use of Intermediaries
Unsuccessful Appeal of decision to vacate a Fact-Finding Hearing
This case concerned two children; ‘C’, aged 8, and ‘D’, aged 6. The children’s maternal uncle, AB, sought a Special Guardianship Order in respect of the children to enable him to collect the children from school, when neither parent is available to do so, and look after them.
At the end of February 2024, Hayden J gave judgment after a fact-finding hearing in long-running Court of Protection proceedings that were issued in December 2021: An ICB v G [2024] EWCOP 13.
This was a decision following a hearing before Mr Justice Cobb in the High Court. The application before the court was brought under Article 21 of the Hague Convention 1980.
In this judgment the President of the Family Division grappled with the increasingly common scenario where the statutory prohibition on cross examination applied, but where no Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) was in fact available to be appointed by the court to conduct the questioning on behalf of the prohibited person.
