Case Summaries

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.

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