The key issue for the court in this case was whether the father had acquiesced to the child continuing to stay in England. If so, the mother’s defence would succeed, and the child would not be returned to New Zealand.
The father was committed to prison for six months for failing to return the child to England and Wales, refusing to renew the child’s passport, ignoring court orders for indirect contact with the mother and showing a pattern of disregard for court procedure and processes.
The High Court of Justice, Family Division, considered an application for summary return of a child to a non-Hague Convention country, Pakistan, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
This case concerns private children proceedings where findings were made against the father, resulting in no order for contact, removal of his parental responsibility and a Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 barring order. The remit of an existing Non-Molestation Order was also extended to include the children until they were aged 16 with a zonal provision for their respective schools.
The application before the court was for an adoption order of L who was 17.
This was a successful appeal of a spousal maintenance award before HHJ Farquhar that emphasised that the issue of double counting the capital value of a business and its income stream should not trump a party’s needs
This case concerns the wife’s application to exclude certain material from the husband’s open offer following a private FDR. Mr Justice Peel granted the application and ordered that the offending words be deleted.
Supreme Court rules that demonstrable intention and consistent treatment of assets over time determine whether property is matrimonial and subject to the sharing principle, irrespective of legal title.
Mr Justice Warshaw KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, made an order for relief under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 made on behalf of C (aged 8 at the time of judgment).
The Court of Appeal considered an appeal against findings of fact within care proceedings, where there had been multiple failures to adhere to Achieving Best Evidence guidelines.
Poole J considered an application to remove reporting restrictions in relation to concluded care proceedings.
This is an appeal by the father against the making of a s91(14) order in a private law family matter. The proceedings were originally heard in Brighton and then the appeal conducted by Mr Justice Poole in the High Court.
This case concerns the welfare of E, born January 2022 and so aged 3 ½, and N, born February 2023 and therefore now aged 2 ½. The father brings this application, via a c66 application and therefore the inherent jurisdiction was invoked. He sought wardship, which was not pursued,  a summary return order, declarations and prohibitive orders (paragraph 1). Proceedings were heard by Mr Justice Cusworth.  The case is useful reading for the purposes of 1996 Hague Convention.
This case concerns child arrangements for a three year old boy. The applicant is his de facto father. The respondent is his mother. The proceedings were heard in the High Court before Mr Justice McKendrick.
HHJ Vincent made an adoption order in favour of the child’s special guardian, with whom he had lived since he was 10 months old concluding that the child’s welfare throughout his life required him to remain in the care of his special guardian.
This case concerns a father’s appeal following the judgment which granted permission for his two children and their mother to relocate to the United Arab Emirates. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal.
