Held that the unmarried same-sex partner of a mother had not acquired parental responsibility for the child by virtue of being registered as the child’s ‘parent’.
Appeal by the wife against orders striking out two sets of claims concerning disputed third-party property interests and removing one third party from the proceedings. Appeal allowed. MacDonald J held that FPR 4.4 does not confer a summary judgment jurisdiction and that the court cannot use its wider case-management powers under FPR 4.1 to achieve the same result.
HHJ Vincent granted the husband permission to pursue financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 following a Russian divorce and refused the wife’s application to stay the English proceedings pending proceedings in Cyprus. The parties’ substantial English connections, particularly the former matrimonial home and their child’s education, provided a solid basis for the application to proceed.
The views of a child can be taken into account in assessing whether the ‘grave risk’ defence under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention is made out.
HHJ Stephen Smith dismissed an application by the mother of SB, a girl now in her teenage years, to set aside historical findings of parental alienation.
Application by the father for the summary return of child to Country A opposed by the mother, relying on Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. Defence made out and application refused.
Her Honour Judge Pemberton published a judgment concerning an application by South Yorkshire Police for a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order concerning the parents of two young daughters, F1 and F2.
Nicholas Stonor KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, made a return order under the inherent jurisdiction for a three-year-old child abducted from the UAE by her father, holding that the grant of humanitarian protection to the child and father did not engage an automatic prohibition on refoulement.
HHJ Marin held that the subject child who was living in Lithuania was not habitually resident in this country and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to determine applications for child arrangements.
Lieven J, over two judgments, dealt with an application by Mr Donovan Sappleton (Lieven J made an order to name Mr Sappleton in her later judgment) to pursue contempt proceedings against the respondent; the application appears against a backdrop of abusive litigation and Lieven J goes on, in the second judgment, to make an Extended Civil Restraint Order against Mr Sappleton and to consider costs.
This is a case demonstrating the Court exercising its discretion to refuse an application made by a father without parental responsibility for party status within care proceedings (with a care plan of adoption). Â
District Judge Parker dismissed the wife’s application for non-molestation and occupation orders, having found that the property concerned was never intended to be the family home.
Poole J considers the interrelationship between occupation orders under section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 and consequential interim child arrangements.
A decision of Mr Justice Harrison domestic abuse, abusive litigation and the limits of parental involvement in private law children proceedings.
Appeal by a mother and maternal grandmother against a special guardianship order made in favour of the child’s foster carer at the conclusion of care proceedings. Appeal allowed. Where an SGO in favour of a non-family foster carer is proposed as the outcome of care proceedings, the court must undertake a proper necessity and proportionality evaluation and should typically determine whether the section 31 threshold criteria are established before deciding whether the child should remain permanently outside the birth family.
Application by husband for anti-suit injunction restraining wife from taking proceedings in Russia. Interim injunction made by Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
