This case concerned the interrelationship between Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“BIIa”) and the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“the 1996 Hague Convention”).
An application was brought by the father, who sought the summary return of his 5-year-old son D to India. The mother opposed the application.
A case determined in the High Court by Mr Justice Cobb highlighting the need for careful compliance with the provisions of the Family Law Act 1986 when it comes to overseas divorces to ensure that they are recognised in this jurisdiction and do not lead to ‘limping marriages’. The case was brought by an applicant wife, Ms Botwe, pursuant to the provisions of sections 51 and 55 Family Law Act 1986. The wife sought a declaration that she remained married to Mr Johnson Brifa (‘the husband’). The husband argued that the parties had legally divorced in Ghana and that that marriage should be recognised in this jurisdiction.
Cobb J considers the test to be applied when deciding whether the English Family Court should exercise or decline jurisdiction in divorce proceedings where proceedings had been issued in another jurisdiction during the Brexit transition period.
In this case Knowles J was taking a decision about W. W is 15 and lives with her mother and brother.
In the context of an application for children’s summary return to this jurisdiction Mrs Justice Roberts considers the preliminary issue of whether children remain habitually resident here or have acquired habitual residence in Brazil. (Judgment given 9th August 2021)
In the context of an application for children’s summary return to this jurisdiction Mrs Justice Roberts considers the preliminary issue of whether children remain habitually resident here or have acquired habitual residence in Brazil. (Judgment given 9th August 2021)
This case involved the mother of two children, B aged nearly 3 years and C nearly 5 months old.
Court of Appeal dismisses a mother’s appeal against an order dismissing her application to revoke adoption orders. The procedural irregularity in the making of the adoption orders did not amount to a fundamental breach of natural justice so as to give the High Court a discretion under the inherent jurisdiction to revoke the order.
Cobb J considers the principles to be applied when determining the issues of costs in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court when considering the welfare of an adult whose capacity was in issue.
The Court of Appeal refused the mother’s appeal against a return order, concluding that Cohen J applied the correct test and was entitled to find, as he did, that the mother would return with the child if the order was made.
Court of Appeal dismisses a mother’s appeal from the making of a placement order.
The case concerned P, a boy aged 4. His parents are Indian citizens. Although both sets of grandparents live in Gujarat, neither parent currently lives in India. F’s father (“F”) became a US citizen following a previous marriage and is an Overseas Indian Citizen, so can enter India without a visa. P’s mother (“M”) lives in the United States, although entered the country in 2015 without a visa and has an outstanding asylum application. The parties met in 2015 and P was born in 2016. He is a US citizen.
The Court of Appeal considers the adequacy of reasons given by the judge at first instance and concludes that the judgment did not sufficiently explain the judge's reasoning for making the findings and did not properly have regard to each piece of evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence before reaching her conclusions.
Mr Justice MacDonald considers an impasse that has left a deeply troubled adolescent without the medium secure NHS bed she requires and deprived of her liberty in a secure unit in which her needs are not being met and her condition is bound to deteriorate.
The Local Authority had issued care proceedings in November 2020 in relation to a boy (D) who was a British National (on the assumption that he was the mother’s natural child) and who lived with foster-carers in Switzerland following a welfare decision made by the Swiss authorities.
