Category: Children

ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 2009

The respondent sought an order returning the applicant to Tanzania, but she had children with British nationality, and the consequences of the order would be inevitably that they would have to go with her.
Held: The court criticised the Tribunal’s view that the children could live with their father.

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428471

In re K (A Child): CA 25 Nov 2010

F brought proceedings here to seek the return of the child K to Poland from where she had been removed by M. F appealed against refusal of an order for K’s return, citing F’s delay.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had not allowed for F’s lack of understanding of issues of international law: ‘this was the plainest case of abduction. The father’s only vulnerability was his delay between understanding the extent of the mother’s removal and activating the Hague remedy.’
The court considerd the imbalance between the parties in the availability of legal aid. Thorpe LJ said: ‘If a foreign national, albeit an abductor, is obliged to present a case involving specialist issues of international family law before a court in this jurisdiction without any legal representation, and perhaps, as here, without any of our language, it is very hard to see that there is the necessary equality of arms and thus the Article 6 rights to a fair trial.’
Munby LJ said: ‘Any dispassionate observer sitting in this court might be forgiven for thinking that there is unfairness in that state of affairs and something very far from the equality of arms which is supposed, consistently with Article 6 of the European Convention, to underlie proceedings of this sort as indeed all proceedings. Justice, as was memorably observed so many years ago, must not merely be done but must be seen to be done. Although I am confident that, despite the mother’s forensic disabilities, justice has been done, I am much less confident that any dispassionate observer having watched these proceedings today would think that justice has been seen to be done, given the disparity in the resources which the State has made available to the one litigant and not to the other.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Munby LJJ, Coleridge J

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1546, [2011] Fam Law 336, [2011] 1 FLR 1268

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re B (Litigants In Person: Timely Service of Documents) FD 30-Sep-2016
Respect for litigants in person – proper service
The court considered the situation where in an international child abduction application, papers were served at the door of the court on a party who was unrepresented, and who had little English.
Held: This was plainly wrong. In such cases it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428231

In re T (A Child): CA 18 Nov 2010

Paternal grandparents appealed against a refusal to make an order for costs in their favour against the local authority. The refusal was made in the course of care proceedings brought by the local authority in relation to two grandchildren. The applicants had intervened after allegations of child abuse, and had been represented and exonerated in a discrete hearing to establish the facts. The Court had, in accordance with usual practice declined to order costs in their favour.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Judge Dowse had failed to appreciate the true purport of the judgment in In re J, which was favourable rather than adverse to the grandparents’ application for costs.

Judges:

Wilson, Munby LJJ, Coleridge J

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1585, [2011] Fam Law 579, [2011] 1 FCR 1585

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re J (Children) (Costs of Fact-Finding Hearing) CA 26-Oct-2009
Mother and father disputed contact. The district judge held a fact finding hearing to resolve allegations of violence made by the mother and denied by the father. Most of the mother’s allegations were held to be established and she sought the costs . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428236

TY v HY (Return Order): FD 17 Apr 2019

F sought a summary order for the return of his 2 year old daughter to Israel. M claimed habitual residence within the UK.
Held: The court had ‘considerable concerns regarding the credibility of the mother’s evidence’. She made several allegations of abuse, for which the evidence was not

Judges:

MacDonald J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1310 (Fam), [2019] 3 FCR 82

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At FD – NY (A Child : 1980 Hague Abduction Convention : Inherent Jurisdiction) CA 18-Jun-2019
M appealed from an order ordering the summary return of a girl to Israel. . .
At FD – In re NY (A Child) (Reunite International and others intervening) SC 30-Oct-2019
The father had applied for a summary order requiring the return of the daughter to Israel. The Court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal, having determined that such an order could not be granted under the Hague Convention on the Civil . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.639749

Re D (Child): FD 20 Jun 2014

Application by CAFCASS for orders (i) requiring CAFCASS to undertake safeguarding checks regarding the stepfather of two children and (ii) requiring the mother of the children to provide CAFCASS with such information about him as is necessary for those safeguarding checks to be made.

Judges:

Bodey J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2376 (Fam), [2014] WLR(D) 312, [2015] 1 WLR 818, [2014] Fam Law 1516, [2015] 1 FLR 991

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Children

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.534358

In re TM: FD 12 Dec 2013

Application by an NHS Trust for the consent or approbation of the court to proposed medical treatment of a seven-year-old child. The child was born with multiple medical problems, and as a result, very considerable mental and physical developmental delay. She has received a great deal of help and treatment throughout her life from the hospital of the NHS Trust. There had been a good working relationship between the staff and treating doctors and the parents, and in particular with the mother of the child, with whom she lived. ‘The purpose of these few words is solely to explain why I am imposing temporarily what has just been described as a blanket injunction on any reporting whatsoever – whether in a newspaper, by broadcast, or in any form of web-based communication – of the existence of these proceedings or anything that has taken place in court today. I do so because that is, of course, a very strong and grave restriction on the Convention right of freedom of expression which underpins the democratic rights of us all. These proceedings were listed for hearing in public, and every single word of them today has taken place in public, with journalists present in the court room. I am now delivering this short judgment in public, but this judgment, like everything else that has been said today, will also be the subject of the same temporary blanket restraint.’

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4043 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Children, Media

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.519045

North Yorkshire County Council v SA and others: CA 1 Jul 2003

The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries where there was insufficient identification of the abuser. There are two parts to the threshold test, the harm or likelihood of harm and the attributable condition. ‘the court has . . to recognise and have regard to the differing interests of the adults and the child, Parliament has provided a two limb threshold which requires to be satisfied before the court has the right to consider the welfare of the child. The first is [that] the child was injured and suffered significant harm. In relation to the second limb, the attributable condition, it seems to me that the two most likely outcomes in ‘uncertain perpetrator’ cases are as follows. The first is that there is sufficient evidence for the court positively to identify the perpetrator or perpetrators. Second, if there is not sufficient evidence to make such a finding, the court has to apply the test set out by Lord Nicholls as to whether there is a real possibility or likelihood that one or more of a number of people with access to the child might have caused the injury to the child. For this purpose, real possibility and likelihood can be treated as the same test. ‘ The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 839, [2003] 2 FLR 849, [2003] 3 FCR 118

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A HL 16-Mar-2000
A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder’s own child B.
Held: Even . .
Cited – Re G (Care proceedings: split trials) CA 2001
In a situation where an application is made for a care order, and the threshold criteria are met, but the court cannot decide which carer is responsible, the preferable interpretation is that in such cases the court is able to proceed at the welfare . .
Cited – Re B (Non-accidental injury: compelling medical evidence) CA 2002
A child had died. Care proceedings were begun for the elder child. It was not clear just who had been responsible for the death.
Held: There were two questions. First, who perpetrated the injuries recorded by the experts? The answer to that . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re K (Children) (Non-accidental injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence) CA 27-Aug-2004
The children had been taken into care, and freed for adoption. The mother appealed saying the blame for non-accidental injury was misplaced. The court had not thought her responsible for the non-accidental injuries, but she had been unwilling to . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council v R (A Minor) and others FD 4-Dec-2008
The local authority sought a care order, alleging serious physical abuse of the child. The mother said that any injuries had been inflicted by the father. The father said that the cause was the mother.
Held: The injuries were not likely to . .
Cited – In re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) SC 14-Dec-2009
A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say . .
Cited – In re L (A Child: Media Reporting) FD 18-Apr-2011
The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.184263

Re C (A Child): FC 29 Sep 2015

There had been care proceedings as to C. The mother was treated by a psychiatrist, X, and an associate Y. They also prepared expert reports. M formally complained about X, and the charges having been dismissed, the doctors now sought disclosure of further medical recods from the care proceedings. His medical reputation had been severely damaged by reporting of the complaints.

Judges:

Sir James Munby P FD

Citations:

[2015] EWFC 79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England CA 1924
The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute . .
Cited – W v Egdell CA 9-Nov-1989
The plaintiff had been confined to a mental hospital after killing several people by shooting. He complained that when he was to be considered for release, his psychiatrist, the defendant had broken his duty of confidence by revealing his concerns . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v D and Others (Local Authority Disclosure of DNA Samples to Police) FD 17-Feb-2010
Care proceedings had been commenced with regard to four children. There were disputes as to who were either mother or father. DNA samples were ordered from all parties . .
Cited – MS v Sweden ECHR 27-Aug-1997
Hudoc Sweden – communication, without the patient’s consent, of personal and confidential medical data by one public authority to another and lack of possibility for patient, prior to the measure, to challenge it . .
Cited – A Health Authority v Dr X and Others CA 21-Dec-2001
Where, after a children case has been heard, a party wishes to apply for the release of papers, the application should be made before the judge who had heard the case. To do otherwise left the second judge making a difficult assessment with . .
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – N (A Child), Re; A v G (Family Proceedings: Disclosure) FD 8-Jul-2009
Application in respect of the proposed disclosure to the General Medical Council (GMC) of an expert report produced in the course of and for the purposes of proceedings in relation to a child. . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice, MediA

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.552792

Re A (A Child): FD 21 Mar 2014

A, a thirteen year old girl had been found to be pregnant. Mostyn J said: ‘The application is made to me for declaratory relief. If I determine that A does not have the appropriate capacity to consent to the continuation or termination of this pregnancy, then the application by the Trust is for declarations that it would be in her interests to terminate that pregnancy. On the other hand, if I do determine that she does have the appropriate capacity then the Trust seeks a declaration to that effect so that the position is put beyond doubt and that any later criticisms of the Trust, in taking the steps that they did, can be deflected. ‘

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1445 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.525849

J v K: CCF 21 Feb 2014

Application by father for shared residence order and for permission to take the child for extended periods to the US.

Judges:

Hilary Watson HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EW Misc 6 (CC), [2014] EWCC B6 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.523852

In re F (Children): CA 27 Oct 2010

The mother appealed against refusal of a specific issue order requested to allow her to remove the four children with her from Cleveland to Stronsay in the Orkneys. Both parents were GPs and accepted to be excellent parents. She and her new partner had accepted an offer to work as GPs on Stronsay.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Wilson LJ expressed doubt that there should be any substantial distinction made between applications to remove a child from and within the jurisdiction, and also questioned the application of a test of exceptionality before such an internal removal could be refused. Even so, the judge had not erred in holding the change in circumstances involved in a removal to Stronsay to be exceptional, given the difficulties of a journey. The mother’s application had from the start been fraught with difficulty in that the children had always lived in Cleveland and were settled there, and that the move was against their wishes.

Judges:

Wilson, Rimer, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1428, [2011] Fam Law 238, [2011] 1 FLR 1382, [2011] 1 FCR 428

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – ETS v BT; in re T (A child); In Re L (a child) (internal relocation: shared residence order CA 28-Jan-2009
The mother appealed against a residence order granting the father equal time with the child, saying that she wished to move away.
Held: Wall LJ examined the authorities.
Wall LJ P said: ‘In twenty years time it will not matter a row of . .
Cited – In re E (Minors) (Residence Orders: Imposition of Conditions) CA 30-Apr-1997
A residence order can not be accompanied by an order as to where a parent with care must live in the UK or with whom. An appeal may well arise in which a disappointed applicant will contend that section 13(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a . .
Cited – In re B (A Child) (Prohibited Steps Order) CA 24-Jul-2007
The mother appealed against a refusal of an order allowing her to remove her son to live with her in Northern Ireland.
Held: Thorpe LJ said that the relief appropriately to be sought by the objecting parent is a prohibited steps order. . .
Cited – In re H (Children) ) (Residence Order: Condition) CA 30-Jul-2001
Thorpe LJ said: ‘What is the rationalisation for a different test to be applied to an application to relocate to Belfast, as opposed to, say, an application to relocate from Gloucester to Dublin? All that the court can do is to remember that in each . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Residence Order: Condition) CA 11-May-2001
Thorpe and Clarke LJJ both observed that it was desirable to have some consistency between the principles to be applied as between applications for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction and for removals within the jurisdiction of the court. . .
Cited – Haringey Independent Appeal Panel v M, Regina (on The Application of) CA 12-Oct-2010
The respondent, M, had applied for judicial review of the dismissal by the Haringey Independent Appeal Panel of her appeal against the refusal of Haringey, as the local education authority, to allow her daughter, MC, to attend the school of her . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Residence order: condition) (No 2) CA 4-Dec-2002
Butler-Sloss LJ P referred to the exceptionality required before restricting a parents right to remove a child within the jurisdiction, saying: ‘the principle enunciated in Re E . . that the court ought not in other than exceptional circumstances to . .
Cited – Currey v Currey CA 18-Oct-2006
Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427202

Miranda Van Den Berg And Noa Sarri v The Netherlands: ECHR 2 Nov 2010

A mother was complaining that the Dutch courts had ordered the return of her daughter and had rejected her case under article 13b.

Citations:

7239/08, [2010] ECHR 1947

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) SC 10-Jun-2011
Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426961

In re W (A Minor): CA 18 Nov 2010

The mother sought leave to appeal against an order granting residence of her daughter to the paternal grandparents.
Held: The application failed. To make an order, the court had to be satisfied that the substantive appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, or that there other compelling reasons for hearing an appeal. The making of a residence order is a matter of discretion, applying the welfare check-list. The appellant had a long history of refusal herself to comply with court orders, and of lies to the court and welfare officers, but ‘The mother’s conduct is about as bad as it is possible to get, but that is not necessarily a basis for removing P from her care.’ Even so, the judge’s decision was based on the child’s welfare and was unappealable.

Judges:

Sir Nicholas Wall P

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1280

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.426028

Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 2): ECJ 9 Nov 2010

Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Lis pendens – Action on the merits relating to custody of a child and application for provisional measures relating to the right of custody of the same child

Citations:

C-296/10, [2010] EUECJ C-296/10, ECLI:EU:C:2010:665, [2011] Fam 312, [2011] 3 WLR 1040, [2011] ILPr 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Purrucker v Valles Perez ECJ 20-May-2010
EU (Opinion) Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility Provisional measures Custody. . .
See Also – Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 1) ECJ 15-Jul-2010
ECJ (Judgment) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.426022

Re L-W (Children) (Enforcement and Committal: Contact); CPL v CH-W and Others: CA 4 Nov 2010

The father appealed against orders made in the county court in the course of child contact enforcement proceedings. He had residence of the child, but had repeatedly failed to make his son available for contact at the times ordered causing financial loss to the mother who had travelled to see him.
Held: With minor exceptions, the appeals succeeded.
Munby LJ said: ‘(1) The first task for the judge hearing an application for committal for alleged breach of a mandatory (positive) order is to identify, by reference to the express language of the order, precisely what it is that the order required the defendant to do. That is a question of construction and, thus, a question of law. (2) The next task for the judge is to determine whether the defendant has done what he was required to do and, if he has not, whether it was within his power to do it. To adopt Hughes LJ’s language, Could he do it? Was he able to do it? These are questions of fact. (3) The burden of proof lies throughout on the applicant: it is for the applicant to establish that it was within the power of the defendant to do what the order required, not for the defendant to establish that it was not within his power to do it. (4) The standard of proof is the criminal standard, so that before finding the defendant guilty of contempt the judge must be sure (a) that the defendant has not done what he was required to do and (b) that it was within the power of the defendant to do it. (5) If the judge finds the defendant guilty the judgment must set out plainly and clearly (a) the judge’s finding of what it is that the defendant has failed to do and (b) the judge’s finding that he had the ability to do it.’
. . And ‘Bearing in mind that a defendant is not in breach of a mandatory order, even if he has not done what the order required, if it was not within his power to do it, issues of force majeure are properly to be considered as going to questions of breach rather than reasonable excuse. So, for example, if a parent taking a child for contact is prevented from going on or is delayed by unforeseen and insuperable transport or weather problems – one thinks of the sudden and unexpected grounding of the nation’s airlines by volcanic ash – then there will be no breach. Reasonable excuse, in contrast, arises where, although it was within the power of the defendant to comply, he has some good reason, specifically, a ‘reasonable excuse’, for not doing so. A typical case might be where a child suddenly falls ill and the defendant, reasonably in the circumstances, takes the child to the doctor rather than going to contact.’
. . And ‘If it is to be said, for example, that on 30 January 2010 the father was in breach of the order then, to repeat, the task for the judge is to identify, by reference to the express language of the order, precisely what it is that the order required the father to do on 30 January 2010 and then to determine whether the father has done what he was required to do and, if he has not, whether it was on 30 January 2010 within his power to do it. So any allegation of breach necessarily involves a close and careful scrutiny of the events of the day in question. Moreover, the question in the example I have given is whether, on 30 January 2010, it was or was not within the power of the father to do what the order required. If the answer to that question is that it was, then so be it. But if the answer is that it was not (or, to be more precise, that it has not been proved that it was within his power) then that is the end of the allegation, and it matters not at all that the father may by his own acts (or omissions) on previous occasions have brought about the state of affairs upon which he now relies by way of defence.’

Judges:

Munby, Jacob, Sedley LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1253, [2011] 1 FCR 78, [2011] Fam Law 14, [2011] 1 FLR 1095

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 11J 11K 11L 11M 11N 11O 11P

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425801

Re A (A Child): CA 6 Sep 2013

In the context of an intractable contact dispute, firmer case management may be required lest the family care system itself should contribute to the failure to develop a relationship with both parents, thereby violating the child’s article 8 rights

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1104, [2013] 3 FCR 257, [2014] 1 FLR 1185, [2013] Fam Law 1519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Makhlouf v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.515011

Bewry, Regina (on The Application of) v Norfolk County Council: Admn 6 Oct 2010

The claimant had had foster care of two children. They were with temporary respite placements when the respondent decided to place in a different foster setting but without consulting the claimant or otherwise giving him notice.
Held: (ex tempore) The request was granted.
There was no general duty at common law to consult with a foster carer, nor any particular mention of foster carers in the lists created in section 22(4) of the 1989 Act: ‘however, a foster parent, being a person, is someone who may, on the facts and in the circumstances of a particular case, fall within the sub paragraph (d). In most cases, and certainly this case, the foster parent who has been, or is, currently actively involved in the life of a child is obviously somebody in relation to whom the local authority needs at least to pause and consider whether he might be a person whose wishes and feelings the authority should consider to be relevant regarding the matter to be decided.’
Nor was there here any emergency to justify urgent action. Given the claimant’s non-cooperation with the Council, their decision to proceed may be understandable, but they had a duty to consult and did not do so: ‘if they had given consideration to the question of consultation with the claimant, this local authority could not have reasonably considered, and no local authority could reasonably have considered, that his wishes and feelings were other than relevant regarding the matter to be decided.’

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2011] 1 FLR 945, [2011] Fam Law 137, [2010] EWHC 2545 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 22(4)

Cited by:

See Also – Bewry v Reed Elseveir (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 10-Oct-2013
The claimant had begin proceedings against the defendant legal publishers, saying that their summary of a cash had brought was defamatory. He now sought leave to extend the limitation period for his claim, and the defendants argued that, given the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425597

G v B: FD 25 Oct 2010

The court was asked whether a CAFCASS report prepared at the order of the court should be disclosed to the court and or to the parties, and whether those involved should be told of any changes to the report made at the request of any person.

Judges:

Sir Nicholas Wall

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2630 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425501