Click the case name for better results:

In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

In Re B (Minors) (Contact): CA 3 Feb 1993

The Judge had a discretion to look again at the natural mother’s case before making an adoption order. In order to minimise delay in any case, and to facilitate efficient decision-making, the court could, exercising its wide judicial discretion, consider the application for leave to apply for an order revoking the placement order on a … Continue reading In Re B (Minors) (Contact): CA 3 Feb 1993

Re C (Children Appeal): FC 30 May 2014

Application by the father for permission to appeal as to whether care orders in respect of the children should be discharged with the result the children could return to live with their father; whether the section 34(4) order should be discharged so that the children could have direct contact with their father; and thirdly, whether … Continue reading Re C (Children Appeal): FC 30 May 2014

Re C (Children Appeal); FC 30 May 2014

References: [2014] EWFC B163 Links: Bailii Coram: Eaglestone HHJ Application by the father for permission to appeal as to whether care orders in respect of the children should be discharged with the result the children could return to live with their father; whether the section 34(4) order should be discharged so that the children could … Continue reading Re C (Children Appeal); FC 30 May 2014

Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) and Others: HL 16 Dec 1993

The local authority applied for a care order in respect of a young baby. The mother was only 15 and was a ‘child’ herself. Held: In an application under 34(4) the interests of the child who is the subject of the application are paramount, and precede those of the mother, even if she herself is … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) and Others: HL 16 Dec 1993