Judgments

This appeal was brought by the Children’s Guardian, who sought to set aside an interim Child Arrangements Order.

Mr Justice Peel considered highly unusual applications for the identities of various professionals, to whom the parents and their associates are said to pose a risk of serious psychological and physical harm, to be withheld from the parents in care proceedings.

The proceedings concerned three children, MS (aged 15), LS (aged 13), and HS (aged 8). The children were now habitually resident in England and Wales, following relocation from Turkey in 2023.

Where a prenuptial agreement determines the parties’ financial positions on divorce but lacks an explicit buy-out mechanism, the court may still order compensatory payment for the transfer of separate-property shares exchanged to achieve a clean break, provided that, based on the facts, the overall outcome of implementing the agreement remains fair.

The proceedings concerned Z, a boy described in the judgment as “over 10 years old.” He has been subject to both private and public law proceedings since 2012 and 2013 respectively, and has been in local authority care since March 2021.

This case, allocated to the High Court was concerned with three applications.

These were proceedings in the High Court, with the court being concerned with one child who was referred to ‘C’. The child was 14 months of age.

The judge considered an application for permission to appeal and the appeal in respect of an order made by a Circuit Judge (paragraph 1).

M’s contact with the child was limited to indirect contact only following a change of residence to F’s care as a result of concerns that M was undermining the child’s relationship with F and continued concerns that direct contact could not secure F’s safety or promote the welfare of the child until M undertook the necessary work.

This judgment was published by Her Honour Judge Cains sitting in the Family Court at Middlesbrough on 17 March 2026. On 23 February 2026 the court determined that the Defendant was in contempt of court having breached a Specific Issue Order (SIO) made on 2 January 2026 when he deliberately failed to return the child immediately to the Claimant’s care. The court had to make a Search and Return Order for the police to collect and return the child.  

The father applied to have direct contact with the parties’ 9 year daughter following a failed application under Article 21 of the Hague Convention 1980. The mother cross-applied for orders restricting the father’s parental responsibility and for a Section 91(14) order.

This case concerned the welfare of JX, a child of 2 years old. This judgment relates to a fact-finding hearing which took place over 5 days. Both parties made a number of cross-allegations of domestic abuse, and the court made findings against both the mother and the father.

CoA once again and following Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 overturning a costs order made at a first instance appeal finding that the father had not conducted litigation in an unreasonable or reprehensible way despite being unsuccessful with his opposition to the mother’s first instance appeal and cross appeal from a Magistrates Decision.

Appeal by adoptive mother against decision that the court has no power to set aside a validly made adoption order, other than by way of appeal. Appeal dismissed

This is a judgment of HHJ Lazarus regarding an application made by the mother under s.34 of the Children Act in relation to her daughter, A, born in February 2017.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father’s appeal against a costs order made in private children proceedings that he should pay 75% (£385,587) towards the mother’s costs. The costs order was both made and substituted on account of the conduct threshold.