Category tags are only available from 2024 use the advanced search for older updates.
The President provided guidance on the practice to be adopted when court documents need to be served on someone residing at a women’s refuge, pending formal guidance from the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
This was a final hearing in a case concerning two girls, Z (13) and X (11). They had both been made subjects of ICOs on 19.05.22 on the grounds of risk of psychological harm because of alleged ‘parental alienation’.
The Court was concerned with a number of applications and whether it had jurisdiction in respect of subject children.
Appeal from a final decision to make care and placement orders on the grounds of unfairness to the mother after her legal team withdrew at a late stage and an application to adjourn was refused. The Court of Appeal sets out the key legal principle and propositions arising from the relevant authorities.
The CA allowed an appeal against an order to return a child to Australia pursuant to the Hague Convention 1980, concluding that the child would be at grave risk of harm if returned, primarily due to the likely impact on the mother’s mental health.
Hayden J makes orders in the Court of Protection which allows a decree nisi to be granted in divorce proceedings in the Family Court
The court were concerned with a young person “Sam” who at the age of 15 wished to travel abroad to undergo surgery, namely a double mastectomy. The application was made by a local authority who applied for leave to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the young person from travelling to Country “X”. Sam was assigned to the female gender at birth but has lived socially as a boy for some years. The parents and Sam were born in country “X” however they have the right to remain in the UK.
HHJ Vincent sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge determines an application under Part 19 FPR 2010 as to notification of a father without PR about a child, M, placed for adoption.
Sir Andrew McFarlane P dismisses an appeal against a judge’s refusal to reopen findings of fact and gives guidance about instruction of unregulated psychologists as experts in family proceedings.
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a judge’s decision not to order a further fact-finding hearing in long-running care proceedings.
Mostyn J had to decide whether the lower court had jurisdiction to order that a tenancy held by the parties jointly should be transferred to the respondent solely.
The Court of Appeal gives guidance as to how, in care proceedings, the rights of 3rd parties are to be protected when information such as messages are extracted from a mobile phone by an expert instructed in the proceedings, rather than disclosed following by extraction by the police.
Peel J considered the procedure for hearing an Inheritance Act 1975 claim in the Family Division, and ordered that a wife was entitled to reasonable financial provision under that statute amounting to half of her deceased husband’s estate.
Mrs Justice Morgan considered an application by K to adopt “Maya,” a girl aged 11. K had adopted Maya in country F in November 2019 and brought her to the UK in July 2021. Adoptions in F are not recognised in English law. The birth parents had not been served with notice of the proceedings.
On 15th February 2023 the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected a father’s appeal against the imposition of 2 concurrent 12 months sentence for contempt of court as ‘manifestly excessive’.
This case concerned the summary return of the subject children to the State of Texas, USA. The application dated 5 April 2022 was made by the Father pursuant to Articles 3 and 12 of the Hague Convention 1980.
