Category tags are only available from 2024 use the advanced search for older updates.
The court has the power, under the 1980 Convention, to order return to a state other than the state of the child’s habitual residence at the relevant date of the alleged wrongful removal or retention.
The case involved an appeal by a father in relation to an order made in private law proceedings restricting his contact to indirect only and restricting his exercise of parental responsibility.
Consultation ends on 30 September 2020
Mr Darren Howe QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge granted a stay of a return order made in Hague Convention proceedings after an asylum application is made on behalf of the child and considered whether the father should be ordered to file a statement giving information about the grounds on which asylum is claimed. The judge also considered whether the Covid-19 regulations permit a parent subject to compulsory quarantine on arrival in the UK to have contact with the child.
Cobb J gave judgement in a dispute between a former cohabiting couple concerning the ownership of the shares in a company which owned the family home. The Claimant had also made a claim under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 in the alternative.
This is a judgment concerning three children, A (10), B (8) and C (2). D, their brother, tragically died on 13th March 2019. He was two months old. A fact-finding hearing was listed to establish the cause of D’s death and the circumstances in which he sustained multiple rib fractures.
An appeal from a return order in a Hague case to consider where a child is habitually resident.
A deputy High Court judge’s refusal to set aside a return order made under the 1980 Hague Convention was successfully appealed. The Court of Appeal found that the Article 13(b) threshold of grave risk of harm or intolerability was met, determining that this was a case in which permission should have been given for further medical evidence to be obtained when the mother first applied.
A father applied for contact with his children aged 5 and 2. The mother objected on the basis that the father had subjected her to very serious coercive and controlling behaviour, including rape. She wanted to reply upon what she argued was similar behaviour by the father towards his subsequent partner and her children. The Judge excluded that evidence and the mother appealed.
The appeal was allowed and the proceedings transferred back to the High Court for a finding of fact hearing. The Court of Appeal set out the general approach to be taken to similar fact evidence in civil and family proceedings.
Successful appeal of a decision to remove three children from their mother under pre-existing interim care orders
Decision of Roberts J in an ‘unusual application’ by a former wife for a financial remedy order in respect of A who is the parties’ only child, who is six years old.
Judgment of Lieven J determining various applications, including an application for committal for breach of a non-molestation order, arising from long-running private children and Family Law Act 1996 applications dating from 2000. Includes consideration of anonymisation of judgments where a complainant of sexual abuse risks being identified.
This appeal concerns the extent of the obligation upon the court in England and Wales to enforce a foreign order in relation to children. It directly concerns one provision of the Brussels II revised Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003) (‘BIIa’) but the underlying principles are of broad application in cases where the court is faced with an enforcement application alongside a welfare application.
Consideration of costs following disclosure and permission to appeal
Appeal by a father in which the court of appeal considered a local authority’s powers in relation to changing the nationality of children in care
