Judgments

This case concerns three main issues concerning L, a boy aged four years

These proceedings concern the welfare of three children: X, a boy aged 8; and Y and Z, two twin girls, aged 5. The Applicant is the children’s mother, and the Respondent is the children’s father.

This case concerns the alleged wrongful retention of two children, C and B, by their mother, in England. At the time the proceedings commenced C was 12; and B was 9.

The case of KV v KV (No. 2) [2024] EWFC 359 is a decision of Sir Jonathan Cohen sitting in the High Court concerning jurisdiction and forum.

This judgment was delivered by Mr Justice MacDonald sitting in the High Court. The court was concerned with a final welfare hearing in proceedings relating to a nearly 3 year old girl (“T”). T was not a British Citizen.

Application by foster carers to adopt 3 children subject to care and placement orders. Placement orders revoked and children to remain in long-term foster care.

This case concerns child arrangements for AB who is 2 ½ years old.

This case concerns an application by a father for summary return of the parties’ child (R) to Italy pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention.

These proceedings were in the High Court, before Mr Justice Keehan.

This judgment was published by Her Honour Judge Moreton sitting in the Family Court at Teeside. The court was concerned with an application made by the wife for contempt in the context of their financial remedy proceedings. This case was reported on 8 May 2025.

This case concerns an application by the mother for the setting aside of an order for the summary return pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention to Poland of two children referred to in the judgment as T (aged 9) and H (aged 6).

This case concerns a case management application by AX ((hereafter “the mother”) and DA (hereafter “the father”) pursuant to FPR 2010 r.25.9(2) for a direction that the single joint experts, Neuroradiologist), Paediatric Neurosurgeon, Paediatric Radiologist, Obstetrician, Geneticist and Consultant Paediatrician shall attend to give oral evidence on the grounds that it is necessary for them to do so in the interests of justice. 

This case concerns an application by B’s parents’ for a declaration that B lacks capacity to consent to gender affirming treatment which she is currently receiving. B is 17 years old.

Care proceedings involving, inter alia, 2 children whose father is an unregulated sperm donor. Judgment considering, amongst other things, what role he should play in their lives.

In Z Local Authority v SC, the court was tasked with determining whether two teenagers should be removed from their adoptive father into foster care, where such a move would be harmful and obstructed by the children, or permitting the children to remain with their adoptive father notwithstanding significant and ongoing substance misuse.

The High Court grants the local authority permission to contact extended family members of the child relinquished for adoption despite the parents’ objections.