A judgment surrounding the plight of G, an extremely vulnerable child whose life is at risk but who – like many other young people who require specialist secure placements – cannot be so placed given the scarcity of such resources [8].
• Second judgement in the matter concerning the issues of declaration of parentage for an adopted child
• Can a birth parent not previously registered on the Childs birth certificate apply for a declaration of parentage after that child has been adopted pursuant to s55A(91) Family Law Act
• Does the court have power to disapply provisions of FPR 2010 r 8.22(1) to avoid the Childs adopted name appearing on the declaration of parentage
• Would the Registrar General accept a declaration of parentage if the court had disapplied FPR r8.22(1)
• If the Registrar General agrees to re-register the birth would he be able and willing to add the words adopted where the child who is the subject of the declaration has been made the subject of an adoption order by the court.
• Is it contrary to public policy to allow such an application in these circumstances
Mr Justice MacDonald considers an application under the inherent jurisdiction for summary return of a 13-year-old child from Pakistan.
Supreme Court judgment dismissing the appeal of T, a 15-year old, and holding that the use of the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of liberty in cases such as this is permissible, but expressing grave concern about its use to fill a gap in the child care system caused by inadequate resources.
Judd J allows an appeal in a private law children’s case, dealing with the number of allegations to be investigated and the scope of the evidence to be relied on for a fact-finding, following Re H-N, Re T, Re H and Re B-B [2021] EWCA Civ 448
The Covid 19 pandemic is capable of being a Barder event, but the impact of the pandemic on the parties’ company was reasonably foreseeable at the date of the consent order and the husband’s set-aside application was dismissed.
An application under the inherent jurisdiction by two teenage siblings seeking wardship orders including declarations as to their status and a variation of a child arrangements order.
Successful appeal against the rejection of the Local Authority’s care plan for adoption. Proceedings were remitted for re-hearing due to the Recorder’s failure to undertake the Re G balancing exercise
Mostyn J dismissed a challenge to a financial provision arbitration award. He issued important guidance in an Appendix on the challenging and enforcement of such awards, with the approval of the President of the Family Division.
On an application by the Mother under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to consider whether the court had jurisdiction to exercise its residual parens patriae in respect of the children in circumstances where B and E were habitually resident in Sudan, the court considered it did not and the application was dismissed.
Application by the local authority to deprive a 17 year old boy (L) of his liberty under the inherent jurisdiction and thereby to extend his time at his residential unit. One of the main issues was whether it was right to deprive a child of his liberty just because there was no alternative options available to safeguard the child.
NB: Certain of the issues in this case are currently the subject of consideration by the Supreme Court, from which court judgment is awaited in the appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re T (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2136.
An appeal heard by Mr Justice Cobb brought under Chapter III (Recognition and Enforcement) of Council Regulation (EC) No.2201/2003 ('BIIR') concerning whether a Polish custody order from December 2016 should be recognised and enforced. Post-Brexit, BIIR continues to apply under the transitional arrangements for cases issued on or before 31 December 2020.
The key issue in this was whether the unadjudicated claim by the wife under Part III survived the death of the husband and could be continued against his estate.
Keehan J decides the first application made by the The Child and Family Agency in Ireland (CFA) for a transfer request pursuant to Article 8 of the 1996 Convention rather than the previously used provision of Article 15 of the Brussels II Revised regulation ('BIIR').
On an application for temporary leave to remove two young children to non-Convention countries the court determined that the risks of allowing the father to remove the children for contact could not be mitigated by any protective measures.
Before the President of the Family Division, this case concerned 2 separate applications relating to 2 different children.
