Category tags are only available from 2024 use the advanced search for older updates.
An application to adopt A who had attained her majority. The court considered whether the application failed to comply with one of the statutory criteria of section 44, Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Cobb J gives a short judgment on an application under s46 Adoption and Children Act 2002 by a step-father to adopt a 17 year old girl (H).
Application by a father against a mother for a finding of contempt of court, relating to a child removed to Nigeria.
Mr Justice MacDonald reminds participants in care proceedings involving more than one jurisdiction to have proper regard to the principle of comity.
Judicial review of the practice of prescribing puberty suppressing drugs to persons under the age of 18 who experience gender dysphoria.
Concerning the placement of a sixteen year old.
Mr Justice MacDonald determined that the court has jurisdiction pursuant to s.55A(1) of the Family Law Act 1986 to grant a declaration of parentage to a birth parent of a child who had been lawfully adopted. The court referred a number of points to the Family Procedure Rules Committee for their consideration as when the rules set out in Part 8 of the FPR 2010 were drafted, it might not have been appreciated that this was possible, as well as that in some cases, it may be appropriate to grant such a declaration.
A case concerning an application to set aside two consent orders – one from 2010, one from 2013.
Appeal against a final order made 15 months out of time.
Case concerning the sanction to be applied for multiple and flagrant breaches of a freezing injunction. The circumstances of this case resulted in a 6 month term of imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
The judge made findings of the parents’ collusion and that there was a real possibility they had overlaid the child causing an asphyxial event.
This is a decision of Cobb J concerning (amongst other things) the discharge of a Passport Order.
Appeal from care and placement orders made by Keehan J when the Court did not properly identify the risk of future harm to the children and that in consequence the welfare decision was flawed.
Costs assessment and a decision that the GHR can no longer be applied reasonably or equitably without some form of monetary uplift that recognises the erosive effect of inflation and other overheads since the last review in 2010.
