Judgments

A father applied to enforce a child arrangements ‘spends time with’ order. The mother failed to engage and the child opposed contact. The Judge found the mother to be in breach of the order but made no other orders.

This case concerned an application by a father for an injunctive order under the inherent jurisdiction to “restrain any change of school or geographic location of the child including any preparatory steps, pending further order of the court, in order to preserve the status quo and enable judicial supervision of proposed irreversible steps”.

Appeal by local authority against parental contact order after placement for adoption. Appeal dismissed

Ms Justice Harris considered whether a judge sitting in the Family Court has jurisdiction to make an order dealing with publication from private Children Act proceedings where publication is not provided for by the current rules.

The Court of Appeal led by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, affirmed the common law definition of father for the purposes of the Children Act 1989, and found that a non-genetic father does not acquire parental responsibility by virtue of being named in the child’s birth registration.

The court was asked to determine whether it was lawful for the Local Authority to rely on L’s parents’ consent to the care arrangements and restrictions where they amounted to a confinement within the meaning of limb a) of Storck. The Court found the parents’ consent amounted to valid consent under limb b) and, therefore, L was not being deprived of her liberty for the purposes of Article 5.

Financial remedies hearing, in which the issue was how much should be deducted from H’s entitlement of £6.4m under a pre-nuptial agreement ‘PNA’, having regard to his conduct and sums already received. H awarded £2.3m.

Private Children proceedings appeal.  At first instance the court ignored allegations made by the M of domestic abuse.  This was wrong, and despite the court being able to exercise discretion (at any stage) and review the relevance of the allegations, these were clearly relevant to the welfare outcome for the child.  Further, insufficient reasoning was given to go behind the professional report / recommendation.

Hearing before Morgan J concerning fifteen applications for declarations that it is lawful for gametes or embryos to continue to be stored and used in circumstances where written consent to storage had expired.

The Family Court refused applications for declarations of marital status in respect of Nikkah ceremonies conducted in England which did not comply with the Marriage Act 1949. Subsequent registration in Pakistan could not convert those ceremonies into marriages capable of recognition in England and Wales.

Application by foster carers to adopt child in care, opposed by local authority. Adoption order made

High Court decision ordering disclosure of asylum documents in child abduction proceedings, holding that material relevant to testing serious allegations should not be withheld where safeguards can be imposed.

The High Court has ordered the father to return his three children to Ecuador, following their wrongful removal from Ecuador in April 2024. The ruling underscores the critical role of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, protecting the rights of left-behind parents and ensuring that children’s habitual residence is respected in cross-border custody disputes.

Appeal from the decision of Recorder Chandler KC in which he set aside a final consent order made in financial remedy proceedings on the basis of the husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure. The husband appealed, arguing that the set aside application should have been dismissed for undue delay.

Hearing before Cusworth J concerning enforcement of financial orders, including school fees and a legal services provision order, and preservation of assets pending the husband’s application for permission to appeal.

The High Court allowed W’s appeal against a finding, in financial remedy proceedings, that H’s parents had acquired beneficial ownership of a property by proprietary estoppel.