Judgments

On 17 November 2025, a father’s application for the summary return of his children to the USA was dismissed by Mr Justin Warshaw KC.

Application by H to set aside financial remedies order, claiming he had been unable to attend the hearing remotely, due to technical difficulties. Cross-application by wife to enforce the final order. H’s application was dismissed.

Appeal by mother against care and placement orders. Appeal allowed, and orders set aside.

The Court was concerned with the welfare of one child, ‘AM’. The judgment arises out of an appeal by the father, appealing parts of an order from a FHDRA.

Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby refused an application by a psychotherapist, who had given evidence at a fact-finding hearing, for permission to appeal against decisions made by Ms Justice Henke.

This is the costs judgment in an application by Times Media Limited (“TML”) for disclosure of documents relating to previous consent orders made in financial remedies proceedings. 

This case is part of long-running private law proceedings concerning 4 children (A, B, C, D), in which there had been findings of abuse by the father and alienating behaviour from the mother. The Court made a s.37 direction, and interim care orders under s.38 for all 4 children.

This case provides an important restatement of the limits of judicial “indications” and a warning of the procedural consequences if overstepped.

On 5th November 2025 a father’s application for the return of his daughters to Italy, pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention, was dismissed by Mr David Rees KC, sitting as Deputy High Court Judge.

This case concerned financial remedies following the wife’s imprisonment for domestic abuse and the husband’s sole care of the children.

The mother (JT) issued a claim in the chancery division against the father (RL) and the father’s former wife (AL).

Application by local authority for an order authorising it to refuse contact between 4 children in care (who live with their mother) and their father.

Application for care and placement orders in relation to child of Brazilian parents. Application refused, and child returned to care of M and MGM, who will take him to Brazil.

McKendrick J granted declarations that continued ventilation for a twelve-week-old baby with profound neurological injury was not in his best interests, finding the treatment futile, burdensome, and a source of significant suffering.

The recent case, Re H (A Child) (Refusal of Relocation to UAE) [2025] EWHC 2691, highlights the complexities of international child relocation disputes, where, even in situations of abduction, the court ultimately prioritised the child’s welfare and long-term stability despite the child initially being abducted by the father.

The High Court has ordered the father to return his three children to Ecuador, following their wrongful removal from Ecuador in April 2024.