Category tags are only available from 2024 use the advanced search for older updates.
On 9th March the President of the Family Division handed down judgment in this case. The question for the court was whether the final welfare judgment of December 2021 should be published. This concerned the conclusion of long running wardships proceedings involving the parties two children aged 14 and 10.
This decision of Mrs Justice Morgan concerns an application for authorisation of medical treatment by two health trusts, cooperating over the care of a 17 year old child, described in the judgment as Amy (presumably a pseudonym).
This application came before Mostyn J. The mother (RL) sought a rehearing of a fact-finding that took place 5 ½ years ago on 13-17 June 2016 in relation to her then 6 month old daughter, C [1-2]. The Recorder had found on the balance of probabilities that a bruise to C’s right cheek, left cheek, and a fracture to her 7th posterior left rib were inflicted by either her mother or stepfather (DS) [2].
Mostyn J considers the approach to be taken by a court when considering an application for maintenance pending suit and in particular the issue where the paying party has not provided satisfactory disclosure or explanation of their financial position.
Judd J refused an application for a reporting restrictions order which would prevent the reporting the names of parents and a deceased sibling in a criminal trial for the murder of the sibling on the basis of the impact on G who was subject to care proceedings. The injunction was granted to prevent the reporting of G’s existence as a member of the family.
A judgment determining an application for Maintenance Pending Suit and a Legal Services Payment Order, tried on the basis of submissions in the absence of full financial disclosure.
A Judgment from Mr Justice Peel on Hague Convention return orders, the defences of consent and acquiescence and the law on habitual residence.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Snowden) refuse an appeal against a fact-finding judgment in which a Recorder made findings that went beyond those sought by the local authority.
While a successful asylum application may impact on the implementation of a return order, it does not act as a bar to such an order being made or dispense with the need to determine the application. The timing of an asylum claim may potentially be of considerable importance to the application of the principles set out in G v G
A wife’s application for maintenance pending suit in high net-worth financial proceedings
Application for a Declaration of Parentage under s.55A of the Family Law Act 1986 in respect of a deceased biological father
Peel J considers and applies PD 3AA and 12J (domestic abuse/ coercive control) to a Hague Convention Abduction case and makes a suspended return order to allow M to obtain a visa to travel to Portugal where the welfare issues would be resolved and gave directions to allow a welfare decision if the mother had to return to Pakistan instead.
The Court of Appeal dismisses a father’s appeal within private law children proceedings against an interim order made by Cohen J, which had varied a ‘nesting’ arrangement.
Mrs Justice Knowles exercised her discretion to make parental orders under s54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in respect of three children despite the applications being made well outside the statutory 6 month time-limit.
The court was concerned with applications for committal arising out of alleged breaches of several orders, including an order in financial remedy proceedings.
