Case Summaries

Welfare analysis in an application for the return of a child to Nigeria, where the mother and child’s appeal against a refusal to grant them asylum was pending, and findings of domestic abuse had been made against the father.

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a care and placement order where the court had erred in finding there was a risk of future sexual harm on the basis of unproven allegations.

Declaration under the court’s inherent jurisdiction allowing for the administration of anti-retroviral medication to a newborn baby.

A successful appeal against a DJ”s refusal to make a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) establishes that there is jurisdiction to make such an order in circumstances where the applicant is neither present in the jurisdiction nor a British citizen but the respondent is habitually resident here and a British citizen.

The Court of Appeal expressed concern about aspects of the process leading to production of a judgment accompanied by various annexes but refused the mother’s appeal against the findings.

Poole J was dealing with care proceedings relating to 3 families (previously unconnected), all based in the Yorkshire area. He had previously determined that the fact-finding aspects of each set of care proceedings should be heard at a combined hearing, as each case related to allegations of fabricated or induced illness, and involved the children in question being treated at the same hospital (Sheffield Children’s Hospital).

Judgment of Mr Justice Cobb in proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention in which he dismissed the father’s application for summary return of the child and set aside the return order made in Re L (Article 13: Protective Measures)(No.1) [2022] EWHC 3427 (Fam), the father having not complied with the ‘condition – precedent’ within a reasonable time and having demonstrated insufficient engagement with the process of achieving it.

Mr Justice MacDonald refused to authorise restrictions on the use of P’s mobile phone, tablet and laptop and her access to social media in an order authorising the deprivation of her liberty for the purposes of Article 5(1) of the ECHR. The appropriate legal framework for the local authority to remove or restrict P’s mobile phone and social media use was S.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989.

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.