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.
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).
