Judgments

Adoption application made by special guardian. Notice given to wrong local authority, but application allowed to proceed.

Judgment considering issue of parental consent for deprivation of liberty, in case where 4 people had parental responsibility for the child.

In this judgment, the President of the Family Division has addressed the problematic issue of expert witness fees in public law family proceedings when those fees exceed the rates sanctioned by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), ‘prior authority’ cases.

Mr. Justice Trowell heard an appeal from HHJ Spinks, in what was termed a Barrell application. This is the authority that makes clear that a judge can reverse/alter his or her decision at any time prior to the order being perfected.

Hadkinson strikes again: The Court of Appeal made a Hadkinson Order preventing the husband pursuing an appeal against a financial remedies order until he has paid a legal services payment order.

The appeal concerned care proceedings for baby girl E.

This case concerns an application brought by the Father pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention for the summary return to the Republic of Ireland of ‘DC’ who is 7 years old.

This case concerns an application by the Mother in relation to her daughter G aged 14 years old.

The judgment concerns the child arrangements for a 5-year-old girl, A.

In this case, the Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew McFarlane P, King LJ and Singh LJ) overturned the decision of Lieven J’s that a local authority, sharing Parental Responsibility by way of a Care Order, could consent to the de facto confinement and deprivation of a profoundly disabled fourteen-year-old boy.

In Re M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440 the Court of Appeal allowed a mother’s appeal, granting intermediary assistance to ensure the mother’s effective participation in the proceedings. ​ Lord Justice Peter Jackson gave lead judgment.

This case concerns a Mother’s application to discharge a care order in respect of her two children and so to enable them to return to live with her.

This case concerns a young person (Q) who is almost 17 and seeks gender treatment.

This case concerns a child aged 21 months. There are two broad issues as stated in the judgment:’ 2 a. Which parent should A live with? and b. How much time should A spend with the parent with whom he is not living?’

This was a hearing of W’s application for leave under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings 1984 (“the Act”) for permission to apply for financial provision in England after overseas divorce.  The application was heard by Cohen J.

The matter came before Mr Justice Trowell as an appeal from the findings of fact made by HHJ Williscroft in December 2023 and the subsequent Child Arrangements Order.