Judgments

Hearing of father’s contact application, following findings of domestic abuse against him. Contact ordered to continue on indirect basis only.

Application by father for summary return of teenage son to Hungary. Application dismissed, particularly in light of child’s objections

The Court of Appeal, at an oral hearing, refused a local authority permission to appeal against a judge’s decision to reject its applications for care and placement orders and to order that the children should be returned to their mother pursuant to supervision orders.

This application was heard in the High Court by Mr Justice Poole. As his lordship set out at paragraph 1 of the judgment

This was a reported ex tempore judgment concerning a contempt application. The court referred to the relevant parties as wife and husband, given the contextual background concerning financial remedy proceedings.

This case concerns a child, “A”, and a dispute surrounding the time she spends with her father.

The applicant husband (H) applied to set aside a decree absolute made on 21 November 2014, alleging that it had been obtained through fraud and procedural irregularity. Following the death of the wife (W) in 2022, her son from a previous relationship was joined as second respondent (R2) as personal representative of her estate [1], [4].

This case concerns a father’s application for a child arrangements order to spend time with his two children, LJ (aged 10) and B (aged 6). The parents had been separated since January 2023, and the father had not had any contact with the children since that time.

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.