Case Summaries

A judgment in which the Court refuses to make a deprivation of liberty order, where the local authority is unable to identify a suitable therapeutic placement for the child, and continued detention at the psychiatric unit was found harmful to a child who did not suffer from a psychiatric condition.

Application for the court to review a Deprivation of Liberty Order authorisation

Appeals made by the mother (‘M’) and Appellant father (‘F2’) from the findings of fact made in a reserved judgment of HHJ Sapnara on 19 March 2019. The appeals were dismissed.

A comprehensive judgment on contempt of court, following publication by a father of information about family proceedings on Facebook.

The case concerned K, aged 7, a child of Gabonese nationality. K was the subject of care proceedings instigated following allegations made by the mother concerning sexual abuse of K by his step father, and consequential discovery of very poor home conditions.

Judgment of MacDonald J confirming that, following amended regulations prohibiting the placement of looked after children under 16 in unregulated placements, it remains open to the High Court to authorise, under its inherent jurisdiction, the deprivation of liberty of children in such placements, provided that procedural safeguards are complied with.

This case concerned a question of whether a talaq obtained in Pakistan was "an overseas divorce" capable of recognition under ss. 45 and 46 of the Recognition of Divorces, Annulments and Legal Separations Act 1986 (‘the 1986 Act’).

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.