An application by a news media organisation to publish the identity of a local authority and a police force when reporting on judgments given in a care case. The application was refused.
This hearing was conducted by Mr Justice Peel, a High Court Judge. The court was concerned with ‘W’ a three week old baby who, when unborn was placed on a Child Protection Plan on 18 September 2024.
Lord Justice Jackson reverses Mrs. Justice Lieven’s ruling allowing contact with their father, imprisoned for raping their mother. This decision cautions against prioritising children’s wishes over acknowledging the emotional impact on the victim of an unrepentant abusive parent. This case ultimately highlights the need to analyse the relevant welfare checklist factors against PD12J, providing a thorough assessment and reasons to support the decision.
This judgment concerns the common law test for recognising a foreign adoption, which applies where the adoption takes place in a jurisdiction that is not a signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The judgment also addresses ECHR considerations relevant to the recognition of foreign adoptions.
HHJ Middleton-Roy had a fact-finding hearing where the Father (F) was applying for a Child Arrangements Order in light of the Mother (M) making serious domestic abuse allegations against F.
This case concerned the Father’s application to vary a child maintenance order, having lost his previously high paying job. There had been protracted financial remedies proceedings leading up to this, where the applicant’s conduct was questionable.
Mr Justice Cusworth handed down this judgment on 2 September 2024 following a preliminary issue hearing regarding the interpretation of a pre-nuptial agreement (“PNA”) between parties.
His Honour Judge Hess handed down this judgment following a four-day final hearing in the financial remedy proceedings between H and W. The dominant feature of the case was a business owned by H; the case illustrated the ‘well known caution which the courts have often expressed about company valuations’ [20].
H’s application for financial remedy before DJ Dinan-Hayward. Notwithstanding H being the applicant, his failure to engage resulted in W responding to an application which had not been presented to the Court. H’s serious litigation and financial misconduct resulted in adverse inferences and costs consequences.
District Judge Parker considered whether to make a 12-month supervision order for two children, S (aged six) and A (aged one), or to conclude proceedings without an order in circumstances where the mother’s mental health was the primary concern. The case provides an analysis of the necessity and proportionality of supervision orders in the context of risks associated with parental mental health, notably Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder.
Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam) is a decision by Mr Justice Keehan ruled that the court did not have the jurisdiction to determine whether SB was detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983 Act or to review decisions made by clinicians under the Act, but the court will continue to authorise SB’s deprivation of liberty at the adolescent unit pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction.
Sir Jonathan Cohen heard a mother’s urgent appeal against an order that a child should move to live with her father.
Care proceedings concerning a 1-year-old child, in which the mother disengaged from proceedings. In ultimately making care and placement orders, HHJ Hesford engages the relevant legal framework and comments on the importance of adopted children having information readily available to them about their early life.
The Appellant applied for permission to appeal the order made by HHJ Furness KC in February 2024, after a three-day hearing, and sought to set aside the order and sought a rehearing of the application for a financial remedy.
This is H’s application before Sir Jonathan Cohen to strike out W’s application to set aside a financial remedy order made by Mostyn J on 25th January 2022.
A father sought permission to appeal care and placement orders in respect of his daughter, T, on the basis that since the final hearing he has been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder.
