Mr Justice MacDonald published this judgment on an appeal against a District Judge’s decision to dismiss an application for child maintenance. The issues for the court were whether the English Court has retained jurisdiction under the EU Maintenance Regulation following the UK’s departure from the EU and whether the lower court was justified in dismissing this application for alleged breaches of case management directions.
Deputy High Court Judge Catherine Cowton KC published this judgement on an application to transfer public law care proceedings to Romania under Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention.
Three-day fact-finding hearing within concurrent Children Act 1989 and Family Law Act 1996 proceedings. The court determined allegations made by the mother against the father and members of his family arising principally from events in X in December 2025.
Application by the mother (AZ) supported by the guardian to vary existing child arrangements order for a six-year-old girl (CX) to implement no direct or indirect contact with her father (BY). Despite a historically positive relationship and extensive successful supervised contact, the Court concluded that terminating contact was necessary to secure CX’s medium- and long-term welfare.
District Judge Hadley published a judgment on the approach to allegations of domestic abuse in private law children proceedings where parallel criminal proceedings exist. The issue for the court was the extent to which not guilty pleas in criminal proceedings following findings of fact in in family proceedings should influence the court’s assessment of current and future risk.
This was a private law children case concerning an eight-year-old child and arrangements for her to spend time with her father.
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the mother and set aside a ‘pool finding’ that there was a real possibility that the mother was responsible for inflicting three areas of bruising on her son. It held that a rehearing was unnecessary, as the only proper conclusion was that it was more likely than not that the bruising injuries were caused by the intervenor.
This judgment concerned an application by a local authority for permission to withdraw care proceedings in respect of two children, C and D. At the time of the hearing, both children were subject to interim care orders but had been living with their mother since 23 December 2025.
The Court of Appeal gave a unanimous decision to dismiss an application to appeal a dismissal of a mother’s application for leave to revoke a placement order.
Application by a local authority to withdraw its application to extend a deprivation of liberty order concerning a boy approaching 16 at a residential school. The guardian opposed withdrawal because physical restraint was used. Applying the Supreme Court’s revised Article 5 test, the court found no deprivation of liberty and refused an extension.
Mother’s application for direct contact with her six-year-old daughter living with paternal relatives under a special guardianship order. Direct contact refused; vetted indirect contact ordered, with a section 91(14) direction until the child was 13 and a two-year non-molestation order in favour of the special guardians.
Appeal by the mother against the refusal of her application to set aside or stay an order for the summary return of her child to Texas, made when she was in the third trimester of a pregnancy, with two treating clinicians advising that she was unfit to fly. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, stayed the return order until after the birth, and remitted the set-aside application to be reheard. Â
Application by the father for summary return of his child, L, to Pakistan, where the child and mother had been granted asylum in the UK. McKendrick J refused the application, holding that a fact-finding hearing was not necessary to determine it and that the mother’s allegations could be resolved within the child arrangements proceedings.
The court considering the M’s Article 13(b) defence to a summary return of the children to Portugal based on ‘grave’ risks of harm leading to it being ‘intolerable’ and the children’s objections. The defence not engaged, however, a return order made conditional upon the M pursuing her immigration application in good faith, which was feasible especially due to the F’s protective ‘soft landing’ measures and undertakings given.
Whether a final decision can be made at a directions hearing following the findings of fact, despite objections. This is possible, however given the circumstances of this case being contradictions in the mother’s position and that she was determined to eradicate the father from the child’s life it was inappropriate to do so.
Mr Justice Cusworth made a declaration that s83 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 did not apply on the facts of this case and made a parental order in favour of the applicants.
