Case Summaries

Mr Justice Hayden, having previously made extensive findings of coercive and controlling behaviour, identifies this as one of the rare cases where a parent, here a father, has nothing to offer the children and the children are better off without him.

Peel J considers the relevance of a pre-nuptial agreement, third-party support for a party in future and orders for costs notwithstanding the impact on a “needs” budget.

The Court determined whether a 9-day fact-finding hearing should be held into alleged non-accidental injuries to X, following an application made by both respondent parents to dismiss the case.

This appeal concerned whether the refusal of an application by the Appellant, Mr B, to become a party to care proceedings was wrong. Appeal granted.

Mostyn J provides further guidance on reporting restriction and anonymity orders within finance proceedings which are not wholly or mainly about child maintenance. He reminds us that “the mantra "we have always done it this way" cannot act to create a mantle of inviolable secrecy over financial remedy proceedings which the law, as properly understood, does not otherwise recognise” [77].

The Court of Appeal held that children can be voluntarily accommodated under section 20 Children Act 1989 as a long-term measure, without need for a care order, where the placement and care plan are supported by the children’s parents.

The court was required to determine whether the children were, at all relevant times, habitually resident in England and Wales.

Mostyn J considered the appropriate approach to applications for stay when the permission to appeal application is yet to be dealt with.

Moor J made an award in W’s favour to meet her reasonable needs after upholding the validity of French marriage contract.

Knowles J (the lead judge on domestic abuse) considers how the Family Court should approach issues of consent and complainants’ sexual history and related procedural issues in fact-findings under PD12J in two appeals by mothers which were heard together. One appeal was allowed and the other dismissed.

The case concerned an appeal against a case management decision taken by a lay bench at a final hearing in a private law children’s matter to not permit cross-examination or hear oral evidence from the parents, and only to permit oral evidence from the CAFCASS officer. The mother appealed this decision.

This was an appeal against an order permitting the parties to instruct a female ISW to do a s7 report. The appellant father (F) suggested that the assessment should be carried out by a male social worker, and that the order made was an infringement of his human rights.

In G v G Peel J considered whether the legal test set out in Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369 applies to a challenge to an arbitration determination made in a dispute about children as in a challenge to an arbitration award made in a financial remedies dispute, and, if so, whether the A v A [2021] EWHC 1889 guidance applies.

Peel J dismissed H’s application for a freezing order against W where there was no evidence of an intention by W to defeat H’s financial claim.

Application to remove the mother as a party to Convention adoption proceedings