Judgments

 The High Court refuses to duplicate youth justice licensing regime through deprivation of liberty orders

This judgment requires full reading to consider the background and facts. This judgment summary will outline some of the useful points of the law that the Recorder outlined which was directly relevant to the case.

This is a judgment in the application for a lump sum for litigation costs funding brought by the Applicant mother under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, pertaining to proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

Sir Andrew McFarlane P, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s refusal to grant a s 26 order, finding that while sibling contact was desirable, it was not essential, and the potential deterrent effect on prospective adopters was a relevant factor.

ER v NT [2025] EWHC 2146 (Fam) represents a significant High Court decision concerning the necessity of fact-finding hearings in private law children proceedings involving allegations of domestic abuse and coercive control.

This was a judgment of Mrs Justice Theis DBE, concerning an application by a hospital trust to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a 10-month-old child, ‘Z’.

This case concerned an application by the Trust for a declaration as to whether it was in the best interests of baby boy (’J’) to receive continued ventilation. The issue for the Court was when to consider the matter, in circumstances where the child’s mother was lacking capacity to participate in the proceedings.

In this high-net-worth financial remedies case, the court was asked to determine the appropriate lump sum payable to the husband following the breakdown of a 9-year marriage.

A separated couple came before the Family Court with a single issue to be determined by the Court, i.e. should the mother be permitted to relocate from Buckinghamshire to Northumberland with the parties’ child, or should she be required to stay near the father’s home to promote a close relationship between the father and the child.

The Court of Appeal, Peter Jackson LJ giving the lead judgment and Baker LJ dissenting, dismissed an appeal against a decision by HHJ Willans (sitting as DHCJ) not to hold a fact-finding hearing to determine the cause of death of the mother’s first child.

This short judgment concerned an application in relation to a 7 year old girl, C, by her father, A, to prevent the Local Authority from being permitted to seek that C receive her routine childhood vaccinations.

This was an application for judicial review ‘of an Occupation Order made by HHJ Oliver on 8 July 2024 in the context of extensive Family Court proceedings involving a dispute between the Claimant and the first interested party and concerning the welfare of their young son’.

This hearing related to a judgment provided by Mr Justice MacDonald as to whether the parents of the subject person, termed as ‘M’ should be given notice of the proceedings.

The applicant husband was employed as a telecommunications IT Engineer for well-known companies through his own umbrella company, and the respondent wife was employed in various roles within the executive agencies of the civil service.

This judgment was delivered by His Honour Judge Guite sitting in the Family Court and Lancaster. The court was concerned with the welfare of two children, AC who was 17 years of age and BC who was 12 years of age who were subject to an application for public law orders by Lancashire County Council.  

This was an unsuccessful appeal by the mother from the Lay Magistrates on 17th December 2024. The mother appealed the court’s decision to order a joint lives with order in respect of both parents. The mother sought a lives with order in her favour.