Judgments

Case management hearing before MacDonald J following the grant of leave by the Court of Appeal for the wife to proceed with her claim under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

HHJ Owens considered whether to vary a previous Prohibited Steps Order (PSO) until the child, A, is 18 in order to prevent the father from meeting with or communicating with her, to extend the existing non-molestation order (NMO) until A finishes university and for a Section 91(14) order to last until she is 18.

HHJ George determined as a preliminary issue whether the child, G, was 16 or 18 and if her name was P or G. Given that the child likes to be known by G, she is referred to this judgment and summary as G.

The case concerns the retention in India of a child who was not returned to England following an agreed temporary stay abroad.

The judgments determined two appeals which were heard together. Both appeals are from the order made in financial remedy proceedings on 7 August 2024 by HHJ Hess, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

Appeal by local authority against adoption order, on the basis that the court was misled about the true circumstances of the adopters. Appeal allowed

McKendrick J emphasises that educational supervision must be central to Deprivation of Liberty Orders for Children.

The Court of Appeal declines to disturb a fact-sensitive welfare evaluation in the twins litigation and underlines the high threshold for overturning private law welfare decisions on appeal.

Ms Justice Harris considered an application from a child’s birth mother, who sought permission to oppose an adoption application in respect of the child, for disclosure of the Annex A report on the suitability of the prospective adopters.

This case concerns a father’s application to set aside a civil restraint order so that he could pursue further proceedings.

The Court of Appeal once again corrects a refusal of a placement order and reminds of the duty under section 26 ACA 2002 to set the template for contact.

Power of the appellate court where the Appellant has died intestate after being granted permission to appeal against a financial remedies order, and no one has authority to continue the appeal on behalf of the deceased’s estate.

The central issue was whether the father’s application for a ‘Spend Time With’ order should be refused due to safeguarding concerns arising from his conduct, lack of engagement, and the children’s welfare. The father’s conduct also led the judge to consider and make a section 91(14) order without notice.

Whether the subject child should be permanently removed from the jurisdiction of England and Wales to Spain. The case is an example of how the court identifies and weighs the relevant factors in a relocation case.

Whether it was in G’s best interests for mechanical ventilation to continue, or whether ventilatory support should be discontinued because it no longer provided her with any real benefit and prolonged the burdens of her condition and treatment.

This was the final hearing before Mr Justice Trowell for the parties’ cross applications for the return of their children. The mother sought for their daughter C, aged 8, to return from Egypt to the UK; the father sought for B, their son, aged 3, to return to Egypt from the UK.