Category tags are only available from 2024 use the advanced search for older updates.
The Court of Appeal ordered a rehearing of a mother’s application for leave to oppose an adoption application, because of procedural unfairness. The local authority’s failure to ensure that the necessary material was available to the mother and the court was criticised.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a special guardianship order can co-exist with a care order and remitted for re-hearing the question of whether or not the SGO in this case should be discharged.
This was an appeal in respect of an order protecting the identification of the Appellants’ children in any reporting of judicial review proceedings. The Respondents were their children’s primary school and the Council responsible for it.
A local authority’s application not to assess a grandmother as a carer was granted and the grandmother’s application for a Special Guardianship Order or a Child Arrangements Order was dismissed.
On 21 April 2021, Mrs Justice Knowles handed down the 16th reported judgment in proceedings brought by a wife, Tatiana Akhmedova (‘W’), in her attempts to enforce an award made at the conclusion of financial remedy proceedings in December 2016 against her ex-husband, Farkhad Akhmedov (‘H’).
The case concerned an application by an NHS Trust which would permit them to not provide blood transfusions or treatment involving blood products to a 17 years and 4 month old patient, DL.
Keehan J’s judgement (89 pages) was delivered at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing on 3 applications: contact to children in care, discharge of care with the making of a special guardianship order to long-term foster carers and permission to change the children’s surname. It describes what found to be “egregious and long-standing failures” by the local authority and he questioned whether its children’s services were fit for purpose. [226-227]
The 3 children were 17, 13 and 11. A fourth child C had died at the age of 14 in 2019.
A judgment determining, as a preliminary issue, whether the English court had jurisdiction to hear M’s maintenance application brought pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 following earlier proceedings issued by F in Monaco.
A successful appeal resulting in the interim placement of a baby in foster care pending the full hearing.
Application by hospital trust for declaration that it is lawful and in the best interests of a nine month old baby to withdraw life-sustaining treatment including ventilation
Application by a Local Authority under Part 18 FPR 2010 to determine whether the “original family” of the mother of F, who was adopted, should be assessed as kinship carers for F. On the facts of the case the Court determined the LA had no obligation to assess but cautioned against this being read as a decision of wider application
In a private law children case with cross-allegations of domestic abuse, Mrs Justice Roberts of the High Court allowed a father’s appeal against Recorder Armitage’s findings of rape and threats to remove their child to Pakistan, following a 4-day fact-finding hearing. Roberts J determined that the manner in which the Recorder reached her conclusions was flawed, and the case was remitted for an early rehearing.
This case examines in general the ambit of section 33 of the Children Act 1989 and in particular how local authorities should approach applications for immigration status for those children in their care. Some children will be subject to care orders which confers parental responsibility upon the local authority. Section 33 permits the local authority to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by others such as parents, when it is necessary for the child’s welfare.
Hague Convention proceedings in which Mr Justice Peel rejected the mother’s defences and ordered the return of children aged 7 and 3 to Kazakhstan notwithstanding the father’s undertakings would not be enforceable in that jurisdiction.
An application by, AB, the mother of a child, XY for a declaration that she and CD, the child’s father, have the legal ability to consent to the administration of hormone treatment to suppress puberty, known as “PBs”/puberty blockers. The case concerned a 15 year-old child, with Gender Dysphoria, who was born a boy, came out as transgender at age 10, and had transitioned socially in all aspects of life, including legal paper work, which included a name change by deed poll.
