Category: Children

In Re S (A Minor) (Abduction: European Convention): HL 30 Jul 1997

An illegitimate child’s habitual country of residence is determined at the date of death of his mother when he was to be removed following the death. Where the mother of an illegitimate child who is resident in England dies and the grandmother takes the child to Ireland, the child remains resident in England.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Gazette 10-Sep-1997, Times 30-Jul-1997, [1997] UKHL 32, [1998] AC 750, [1997] 4 All ER 251, [1997] 3 WLR 597, [1998] 1 FLR 122, [1997] Fam Law 782, [1997] 3 FCR 293

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 12(2), Family Law Act 1986 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re P (GE) (An infant) CA 1965
A stateless child was taken by his father away from the mother in England to Israel.
Held: The wardship jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery extended to any child ‘ordinarily resident’ in this country. An infant of British nationality whether . .
Cited – In re J (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody rights) HL 1-Jul-1990
On 21 March 1990 the mother removed the child, aged two, from Australia, where he had been habitually resident, to England with the intention of permanently residing here. She did so without the knowledge of the father who also resided in Australia . .
Cited – In re B-M (Wardship: Jurisdiction) FD 1993
The court considered a child who was a German national. He was taken by his mother out of England where they had been living and where they had their habitual residence. The mother was sole custodian of the child. On the application of the father . .
Cited – In Re H (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights) HL 1991
The House addressed the question whether wrongful removal and wrongful retention were mutually exclusive concepts. The issue arose in the context of the commencement date for the 1985 Act as between the two States involved.
Held: For the . .
Cited – F v S (Wardship: Jurisdiction) FD 1991
. .
Cited – In Re H (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights) HL 1991
The House addressed the question whether wrongful removal and wrongful retention were mutually exclusive concepts. The issue arose in the context of the commencement date for the 1985 Act as between the two States involved.
Held: For the . .
Cited – F v S (Wardship: Jurisdiction) CA 1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.82159

C v K: FD 4 Dec 2014

Mother’s application for discharge of prohibited steps order -possible family home visit out of jurisdiction.

Judges:

Cobb J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4125 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.539789

AA v The United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Sep 2011

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 1345, 8000/08, [2012] Imm AR 107

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – AA v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Apr-2010
. .

Cited by:

Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.463496

Bebbington v Palmer (T/A Sturry News): EAT 23 Feb 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant, a newspaper boy, was not employed under a contact of employment, on the facts found by the ET s. 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1937 does not provide that a child employed in accordance with the statute is to be regarded as an employee.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0371 – 09 – 2302

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1937 18

Employment, Children

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401682

MT, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon: CA 21 Jan 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal against the refusal to grant permission to the applicant, MT, to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Judges:

Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children, Immigration

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396705

In re D (Children); BD v AID: CA 9 Feb 2010

The father sought leave to appeal against an order permitting the mother to remove the parties two sons from Wales to live in Slovakia. The judge had made a shared residence order. Wall LJ discussed the criticisms of Payne -v- Payne, saying: ‘There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.’

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 50, [2010] Fam Law 1175, [2010] 2 FLR 1605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gloucestershire County Council v P (A Minor) and Others CA 19-May-1999
A judge may make a residence order of his own motion, in exceptional and clear circumstances, so as to give residence to a person who was debarred themselves, from applying for such an order. There is no explicit statutory restriction preventing a . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Cited – in Re A (Leave to Remove: Cultural and Religious Consideration) FD 2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – In re AR (A Child: Relocation) FD 10-Jun-2010
Both parents had parental responsibility. The French mother wished to return to live in France and to take the five year old child with her, applying to court for the appropriate order.
Held: The court pointed to the real difficulties always . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396630

The Principal Reporter v JPK and Another: SCS 21 Jan 2010

Citations:

[2010] ScotCS CSIH – 5, 2010 SLT 308, 2010 GWD 5-86, 2010 Fam LR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children (Scotland) Act 1995 93(2)(b)(c)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Principal Reporter, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Re Suspension Ad Interim Of an Interlocutor SCS 30-Jun-2009
(Outer House) . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Principal Reporter v K SC 15-Dec-2010
The court was asked as to the right of an unmarried father to take part in Children’s hearings under the 1995 Act, and depending on the answer whether the scheme was human rights compliant. K was father of the child, but the mother was unmarried. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396466

Deticek v Sgueglia: ECJ 23 Dec 2009

ECJ (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) Judicial cooperation in civil matters Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 Provisional measures concerning custody Decision enforceable in a Member State Wrongful removal of the child Other Member State Other court Custody of the child granted to the other parent Jurisdiction Urgent preliminary ruling procedure.
‘Since article 20(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 authorises a court which does not have jurisdiction as to the substance to take, exceptionally, a provisional measure concerning parental responsibility, it must be considered that the concept of urgency in that provision relates both to the situation of the child and to the impossibility in practice of bringing the application concerning parental responsibility before the court with jurisdiction as to the substance.’

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, P

Citations:

[2009] ECR I-12193, [2009] EUECJ C-403/09, [2010] 1 Fam 104, ECLI:EU:C:2009:810, [2010] 3 WLR 1098,, [2010] Fam 104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 2201/2003 20(1)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – In re J (A Child) SC 25-Nov-2015
The court considered for the first time the scope of the jurisdiction conferred by article 11 of the 1996 Convention ‘in all cases of urgency’ upon the Contracting State where a child is present but not habitually resident. F had obtained an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384491

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 of the hearing. The district judge refused her application and made no order as to costs. The mother appealed to the county court. She invited the judge to draw a distinction between the fact finding hearing and that part of the hearing that related to the welfare of the children. The judge declined to do so. He held that the father had not acted unreasonably in giving evidence in opposition to the mother and dismissed her appeal.
Held: The circuit judge had been wrong not to adopt a ‘compartmentalised’ approach. The husband had not acted irrationally and a proper exercise of the court’s discretion did not depend upon why he chose to deny allegations that he must have known were true.
Wilson LJ said: ‘The order for a bespoke fact-finding hearing was surely to consign the determination of the mother’s allegations into a separate compartment of the court’s determination of the father’s application for an order for contact. It went almost without saying, although the circuit judge chose to say it, that the optimum outcome of the contact application could be determined only by reference to the findings made at the fact-finding hearing; but the effect of the direction for a separate fact-finding hearing was that the costs incurred by the mother in relation to that hearing can confidently be seen to be wholly referable to her allegations against the father. There was, in that sense, a ring fence around that hearing and thus around the costs referable to it. Those costs did not relate to the paradigm situation to which the general proposition in favour of no order as to costs applies.’

Judges:

Ward, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1350, [2010] 1 FCR 135, [2010] Fam Law 234, [2010] 1 FLR 1893

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384356

Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt and others: FD 7 Oct 2004

Charlotte Wyatt was born prematurely, and depended for day to day her life on medical support. Her doctors asked to be permitted not to resuscitate her again if she needed it. Her parents asked that she be given whatever chance was available for her to live.
Held: ‘On the basis of the unanimous medical evidence in this case, the issue in all probability is not whether this baby should live or die but how and when she should die.’ . . ‘What is the role of the court in all this? Any civilised society must have the means by which intractable disputes, whether between the state and the citizen or between citizens themselves are to be resolved. That is the purpose of the courts and the system of civil and family justice in this country. This kind of dispute is to be resolved by a Judge of the Family Division and whilst the judge will be more aware than anyone of his own limitations in deciding as profound an issue as this, decision there simply has to be. It may well be that an external decision is in the end a better solution than the stark alternatives of medical or parental veto. ‘ and ‘The court starts with the fundamental principles of the sanctity of life, the best interests of Charlotte which govern choice and her inherent right to respect for her dignity. Her parents say that all these point in the direction of renewed aggressive treatment in the event of further deterioration. The medical advice is that she should then be allowed to die peacefully in her parents’ arms if that is the natural course and that she should be supplied with all necessary palliative care. There is this common ground: that as and when she comes to die she should do so peacefully with her parents. . . Given that death is the one experience (other than birth) that all humanity must share, no view of life that does not include a contemplation of the place of death, even in a child, can be complete. As a society we fight shy of pondering on death yet inherent in each of us is a deep desire both for oneself and for those we love for a ‘good’ death. It seems to me therefore that in any consideration of best interests in a person at risk of imminent death is that of securing a ‘good’ death. It would be absurd to try to describe that concept more fully beyond saying that everyone in this case knows what it means – not under anaesthetic, not in the course of painful and futile treatment, but peacefully in the arms of those who love her most.’ and ‘I have given this case my most anxious and closest attention. I am only too aware of my own limitations in making so momentous a decision. Yet in the end I have come to a clear view. Subject to two observations that I wish to make at the end of this judgment, I do not believe that any further aggressive treatment, even if necessary to prolong life, is in her best interests. I know that that may mean that she may die earlier than otherwise she might have done but in my judgment the moment of her death will only be slightly advanced. I have asked myself: what can now be done to benefit Charlotte? I can only offer three answers: first, that she can be given as much comfort and as little pain as possible; secondly, that she can be given as much time as possible to spend physically in the presence of and in contact with her parents; thirdly, that she can meet her end whenever that may be in what Mr Wyatt called the TLC of those who love her most. Although I believe and find that further invasive and aggressive treatment would be intolerable to Charlotte, I prefer to determine her best interests on the basis of finding what is the best that can be done for her.

Judges:

Hedley J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2247 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 21, [2004] Fam Law 866, (2005) 84 BMLR 206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re J (a Minor) (Wardship: Medical treatment) CA 1-Oct-1990
J was born at 27 weeks’, weighing only 1.1kg. He suffered very severe and permanent brain damage at the time of his birth, the brain tissue then lost being irreplaceable. He was epileptic and the medical evidence was that he was likely to develop . .
Cited – Regina (Burke) v General Medical Council Admn 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, suffering a life threatening disease, wanted to ensure his continued treatment and revival in the circumstance of losing his own capacity. He said the respondent’s guidelines for doctors were discriminatory and failed to protect his . .
Cited – In Re S (Adult Patient: Sterilisation) CA 26-May-2000
The court should decide what is in the best interests of a patient where she was unable to give consent herself. The test of whether what was proposed was within the range of what reasonable and competent medical practitioners might propose, got the . .
Cited – Airedale NHS Trust v Bland CA 9-Dec-1992
The official Solicitor appealed against a decision that doctors could withdraw medical treatment including artificial nutrition, from a patient in persistent vegetative state.
Held: The doctors sought permission to act in accordance with . .
Followed – Re A (Male Sterilisation) CA 2000
The court considered the duties of a doctor, asking whether a procedure should be undertaken for a patient without the capacity to consent: Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said: ‘The doctor, acting to that required standard, has, in my view, a second . .
Cited – In Re J (A Minor) (Child in Care: Medical Treatment) CA 26-Aug-1992
. .
Cited – In Re A (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) CA 13-Jan-2000
The patient suffered from Down’s Syndrome. As his mother became unable to care for him, she sought his sterilisation to avoid his fathering, whilst in residential care, a child he could not care for.
Held: The application was refused. Where a . .

Cited by:

See Also – Wyatt v Portsmouth NHS Trust and Another FD 21-Apr-2005
Charlotte Wyatt had been born very premature and so severely disabled that her doctors sought and obtained an order that she should not be revived if she died. She had survived several months longer than expected and her parents had noticed . .
Approved – Re L (a child) (Medical Treatment: Benefit) FD 1-Nov-2004
(Date) . .
Cited – Wyatt and Another v Portsmouth Hospital NHS and Another CA 12-Oct-2005
The appellants’ daughter had been born with very severe disabilities. Her doctors obtained an order allowing them a discretion not to ventilate her to keep her alive if necessary. She had improved, but the family now sought leave to appeal an order . .
See Also – In re Wyatt FD 23-Feb-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health Professions, Children

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.216005

In re B (A Child): CA 26 Oct 2009

Application for permission to appeal against a refusal to adjourn the case to enable a new joined intervener time to prepare the case.

Judges:

Ward, Wall LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1243, [2010] Fam Law 246, [2010] 2 FLR 1445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.381647

Regina v Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Committee Ex Parte B: CA 10 Mar 1995

A decision by a Health Authority to withhold treatment for a patient could be properly so made. It was not ordinarily to be a matter for lawyers. A Health Authority’s withholding of treatment, which might not be in a child’s simple best interests could even so be lawful, but when called upon, it would have to show substantial cause for its decisions.
Where the use of limited resources has to be decided, the undesirability of the court stepping in too quickly was made clear: (Sir Thomas Bingham MR) ‘I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient’s family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it cost, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It would however, in my view, be shutting one’s eyes to the real world if the court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. They cannot pay their nurses as much as they would like; they cannot provide all the treatments they would like; they cannot purchase all the extremely expensive medical equipment they would like; they cannot carry out all the research they would like; they cannot build all the hospitals and specialist units they would like. Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make. In my judgment, it is not something that a health authority such as this authority can be fairly criticised for not advancing before the court.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: ‘. . . the courts are not, contrary to what is sometimes believed, arbiters as to the merits of cases of this kind. Were we to express opinions as to the likelihood of the effectiveness of medical treatment, or as to the merits of medical judgment, then we should be straying far from the sphere which under our constitution is accorded to us. We have one function only, which is to rule upon the lawfulness of decisions. That is a function to which we should strictly confine ourselves.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Independent 14-Mar-1995, Times 15-Mar-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 898, [1995] EWCA Civ 43, [1995] EWCA Civ 49, [1995] Fam Law 480, [1995] 6 Med LR 250, [1995] 1 FLR 1056, [1995] 2 FCR 485, [1995] 2 All ER 129, [1995] COD 407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Watts, Regina (on the Application of) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and others Admn 1-Oct-2003
The claimant sought hip-replacement treatment. She was first told that she would have to wait a year. As her lawyers pressed the respondent, she looked at obtaining treatment in France. As she decided to take the treatment, the respondent reduced . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 15-Feb-2006
The claimant suffered breast cancer. She sought treatment from the defendant with a drug called Herceptin, and now sought judicial review of the refusal of such treatment. Various stages in the licensing of the drug were yet to be completed. It was . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant challenged the policy of her local health authority not to allow prescription to her of the drug Herceptin.
Held: The policy had not been settled upon lawfully and was to be set aside. On the one hand the PCT developed a policy . .
See Also – Regina v Cambridge and Huntingdonshire Health Authority Ex Parte B (No 2) CA 27-Oct-1995
A child’s anonymity could removed, where publicity could generate cash for required treatment. . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Children

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.86273

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care with accompanying vicarious liability?
Held: The appeal succeeded (Lord Hughes dissenting). The local authority was vicariously liable for the torts committed by the foster parents in this case. However, the proposition that a local authority is under a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken for the safety of children in care, while they are in the care and control of foster parents, is too broad, and that the responsibility with which it fixes local authorities is too demanding.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 60, [2018] PIQR P4, [2017] PTSR 1382, [2018] AC 355, [2017] 3 WLR 1000, [2018] 1 FLR 329, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 417, [2018] 1 All ER 1, UKSC 2016/0004

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Video 20170208 am, SC Video 20170208 pm, SC Video 20170209 pm, SC Video 20170209 am

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969, Child Care Act 1980, Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – KLB v British Columbia 2-Oct-2003
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Torts – Liability – Intentional torts – Abuse of children by foster parents – Whether government can be held liable for harm children suffered in foster care – Whether government . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Appeal from – NA v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 2-Dec-2014
The claimant said that as a child the defendant had failed in its duty to protect her from her abusive mother and later from foster parents.
Held: Males J, dealt with the issues of liability and limitation, leaving issues concerning causation . .
At CA – NA v Nottinghamshire County Council CA 12-Nov-2015
Appeal against finding that a local authority was not responsible for the sexual abuse of the appellant whilst with foster carers as a child.
Held: As to whether the duty as non-delegable, such a duty must relate to a function which the local . .
Removal of Anonymity – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 15-Nov-2016
Application to set aside anonymity order granted in earlier proceedings alleging sexual abuse. . .
Cited – New South Wales v Lepore 6-Feb-2003
Austlii (High Court of Australia) 1. Appeal allowed in part
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment . .
Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
Cited – S v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1985
The court was asked whether local authorities are vicariously liable for torts committed by foster parents against children placed with them while in care.
Held: The claim was rejected. The critical question was whether the foster parents were . .
Cited – Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis HL 17-Feb-1955
The House considered the unexplained fact that in the temporary absence of the teacher (who, on the evidence, was not negligent) it was possible for a child of four to wander from the school premises onto the highway, through a gate which was either . .
Cited – Perry and Another v Harris (A Minor) CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendant had organised a children’s party. The claimant (11) was injured when a bigger boy was allowed to use the bouncy castle at the same time. The defendants appealed the award of damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The relevant . .
Cited – Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The . .
Cited – Port Swettenham Authority v T W Wu and Co (M) Sdn Bhd PC 19-Jun-1978
A gratuitous bailee assumes a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel: ‘This standard, although high, may be a less exacting standard than that which the common law requires of a bailee for reward [but] the line between the two standards is a . .
Cited – Myton v Woods CA 1980
A claim was made against a local education authority for the negligence of a taxi firm employed by the authority to drive children to and from school.
Held: The claim failed. The authority had no statutory duty to transport children, but only . .
Cited – Surtees v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames CA 27-Mar-1991
Because children can injure themselves in so many ways, someone caring for them is not universally liable for injury to a child in their care.
A duty owed in respect of a parent’s own child may be lower. . .
Cited – JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity and Another QBD 8-Nov-2011
The court was asked as a preliminary issue who should be the defendant where a claim was made of rape and other assaults by a priest who was a member of the diocese of the second defendant, but employed by the first defendant school. . .
Cited – Barrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants SC 1-Apr-2020
The Bank had employed a doctor to provide medical assessments as necessary. The doctor had used the opportunities presented to assault sexually many patients. The court was now asked whether the Bank was vicariously liable for the acts of this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Local Government, Negligence, Children

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.597257

Practice Direction (Care Cases: Judicial Continuity and Judicial Case Management): 2003

Citations:

[2003] 2 FLR 719

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.195620

Nuutinen v Finland: ECHR 27 Jun 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

32842/96, (2000) 34 EHRR 358, [2000] ECHR 354, [2000] ECHR 355

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Mentioned – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.165896

Hokkanen v Finland: ECHR 23 Sep 1994

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Not necessary to examine P7-5; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings
In private law cases, just as much as in public law cases, Article 8 includes ‘a right for the parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take such action.’

Citations:

19823/92, (1994) 19 EHRR 139, [1994] ECHR 32

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Mentioned – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.165322

ZS v A Health and Social Services Trust: FDNI 5 Jun 2018

Application for declaratory relief brought by a mother of a child who is in foster care and in respect of whom an application to free for adoption is pending. The issue is whether the mother can restrict the information which can be shared with the child should he be adopted.

Citations:

[2018] NIFam 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Children

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.657778

In re S-B (Children): CA 30 Jun 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1048

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380351

Re S (A Child) (Foreign Contact Order): CA 16 Jun 2009

The registration of an order under BIIR is ‘essentially administrative, although it requires a judicial act’

Judges:

Thorpe, Wall LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 993, [2010] 1 FCR 258, [2010] 1 FLR 982, [2009] Fam Law 1138

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re D (A Child) SC 22-Jun-2016
F had obtained an order in Romania for the custody of D. F obtained orders initially for the registration and enforcement of that order, but the High Court reversed that saying that neither the child nor his mother had been given adeuate opportunity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375596

Kennedy v Kennedy: CA 24 Jun 2009

The parties, both English, met and married and made a life in Spain. They had two children. The mother brought the children back to the UK on the breakdown of the marriage.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Longmore LJ, Bodey J

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 986, [2010] 1 FLR 782, [2009] Fam Law 1124

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re N (A Child) FD 20-Aug-2008
There had been several hearings and the father had been assisted by a McKenzie friend permitted to address the court. The father now objected to the mother’s McKenzie friend being given similar leave.
Held: Whilst Dr Pelling might make a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Children

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375594

Sophia Gudrun Hansen v Turkey: ECHR 23 Sep 2003

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
‘Although measures against children obliging them to re-unite with one or other parent are not desirable in this sensitive area, such action must not be ruled out in the event of non-compliance or unlawful behaviour by the parent with whom the children live.’

Citations:

36141/97, [2004] 1 FLR 142, [2003] ECHR 451, [2003] ECHR 451

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Mentioned – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.186416

Hornsby v Greece: ECHR 19 Mar 1997

Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Preliminary objection rejected; Just satisfaction reserved – Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The rights recognised under the Convention must be given effect to by signatory states.

Citations:

18357/91, (1997) 24 EHRR 250, [1997] ECHR 15, [1998] ECHR 26, [1998] ECHR 26, [1997] ECHR 15

Links:

Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.165500

Hoppe v Germany: ECHR 5 Dec 2002

Hudoc No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 6-1
The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing in appeal proceedings concerning his right of access to his daughter contrary to article 6(1).
Held: ‘The court recalls further that article 6(1) requires in principle that a hearing be held. The question therefore arises whether a departure from this principle could, in the circumstances of the case, be justified at the appeal stage.
The manner in which article 6 of the Convention applies to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special features of the domestic proceedings viewed as a whole. Even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction both over the facts and in law, article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, irrespective of the nature of the issues to be decided. The publicity requirement is certainly one of the means whereby confidence in the courts is maintained. However, there are other considerations, including the right to a trial within a reasonable time and the related need for an expeditious handling of the courts’ case load, which must be taken into account in determining the necessity of public hearings in the proceedings subsequent to the trial at first instance level. Provided a public hearing has been held at first instance, the absence of a hearing before a second or third instance may accordingly be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue.’ and
‘in cases concerning a person’s relationship with his or her child, there is a duty to exercise exceptional diligence in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter.’

Citations:

28422/95, (2002) 38 EHRR 285, [2003] 1 FLR 384, [2002] ECHR 793, [2002] ECHR 799

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.178373

Re R (Children: Control of Court Documents): CA 12 Feb 2021

The court considered a power of the court in family proceedings to control the distribution of its judgments and of other documents filed for the purpose of the proceedings. It arises from an order made at the end of a fact-finding hearing in care proceedings whereby His Honour Judge Oliver Jones directed that the Appellant, to whom I shall refer as R, should not be provided with a physical copy of the judgment or of the written submissions made by the parties, but should instead receive a summary of the court’s findings and a redacted version of the judgment from which explicit sexual references had been removed

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 162

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.658144

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

Judges:

Stephen Cobb QC HHJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1238 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 895, [2010] Fam Law 794

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1969 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.417774

Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another: FD 9 Feb 2010

Judges:

Munby LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 205 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1960 812(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Social Worker: Disclosure) CA 14-Nov-1995
A social worker may relate oral admissions made by parents to him to the police without first getting a court’s permission.
Butler-Sloss LJ said: ‘I would on balance and in the absence of argument give the more restrictive interpretation to r . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
See also – Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .
See Also – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Children, Local Government, Health Professions

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.396653

The Local Authority v RK and RU and Z (by her Children’s Guardian): FD 21 Aug 2008

Three elder brothers and sisters of Z had been taken into care after one suffered serious non-accidental injury. Before Z’s birth the authority planned for a placement, but had stayed with her parents for nearly a year subject to supervision in the hope that she could stay there. The evidence was that she could not be allowed to stay if the parents stayed together. The parents split up and each applied for residence.
Held: It had been accepted that the mother had been the principle carer, and the father’s application was to be considered only if hers failed. The mother said that now, free of the father, she was free also of the pressures which had led to the abuse. The case crossed the threshhold test. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the evidence was to the effect that the child could not stay with the mother, and a care order was made.

Judges:

Hedley J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2051 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.272820

The Father v The Mother, O by Cafcass Legal; In re O (a Child) (Contact: Withdrawal of application): FD 12 Dec 2003

The father sought to withdraw his application for contact, but the court took the opportunity to explain some points relating to contact disputes.
Held: Such disputes engender very deep feelings. Courts must ensure contact with both parents save when absolutely necessary. Joint residence order should be more widespread, but they were not the default order. The court’s consent was required to withdraw such an application. It is not the courts who decide to hear children cases in private, but a matter for statute. Publicity would be very damaging for the child. The father had failed to understand the part his own behaviour played in the continuation and aggravation of the child’s problems. Parental alienation cases did exist, but this was not one.

Judges:

Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 3031 (Fam), Times 13-Jan-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Proceedings Rules 1991 4.5(1), Children Act 1989 97(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – P v BW (Children Cases: Hearings in Public) FD 2003
The applicant sought a joint residence order, and for a declaration that the rules preventing such hearings being in public breached the requirement for a public hearing.
Held: Both FPR 1991 rule 4.16(7) and section 97 are compatible with the . .
Cited – Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute: Interim Care Orders) FD 2003
The mother had persuaded her children of the lie that their father had physically and sexually abused them, and that their paternal grandparents were also a danger to them. She would not allow any contact with them, and disobeyed court orders for . .
Cited – In Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re V (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re M (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In re L, V, M and H (Children) CA 21-Jun-2000
When considering contact applications after domestic violence, the approach should be child centred, and according to the criteria in the Act. The circumstances of the violence should be looked into, and the potentially damaging effect of contact . .

Cited by:

Cited – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.188850

Regina v H (reasonable Chastisement): CACD 17 May 2001

The defence of reasonable chastisement of a child by his parent remained available despite the Human Rights Act. When directing the jury the judge must give a detailed direction requesting them to consider the nature duration and context of the act, the physical and mental consequences to the child, the age and personal characteristics of the child, and the reasons given for administering the punishment. Standards of reasonableness had changed over time, and there is no impropriety in a judge allowing for this in his directions to the jury.

Citations:

Times 17-May-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Human Rights, Children

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.88488

V-P v V-P (Access to Child): CA 1978

The court discussed whether more potent encouragement to comply with court orders may be to contemplate changing the child’s living arrangements. Ormrod LJ said: ‘I do not wish to issue threats, but the mother should, I think, realise this: the father has a home with the half brother in it, he is unemployed, he is available to look after both these children full time. The mother is fully occupied, so that the grandmother is playing a very important part in this child’s life . . That being so, it would be a mistake on the part of the mother, in my judgment, to assume that the order for custody in her favour is inevitable; it is not and if the situation goes on as it is at present then it may be necessary to reconsider the question of custody.’

Judges:

Ormrod LJ

Citations:

(1978) 1 FLR 336

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.244491

Re H (A Minor) (Custody: Interim Care and Control): CA 1991

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘So it is not a case of parental right opposed to the interests of the child, with an assumption that parental right prevails unless there are strong reasons in terms of the interests of the child. It is the same test which is being applied, the welfare of the child. And all that Re K is saying, as I understand it, is that of course, there is a strong supposition that, other things being equal, it is in the interests of the child that it shall remain with its natural parents. But that has to give way to particular needs in particular situations.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR

Citations:

[1991] 2 FLR 109

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re W (A Minor) (Residence Order) CA 3-May-1993
There is a rebuttable but strong presumption that a child should be with his or her natural parents. Waite LJ said: ‘The authorities which have been cited by Balcombe LJ illustrate the difficulty of finding, within the infinite variety of . .
Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.244486

Principal Reporter, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Re Suspension Ad Interim Of an Interlocutor: SCS 30 Jun 2009

(Outer House)

Citations:

[2009] ScotCS CSOH – 94, [2009] CSOH 94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children (Scotland) Act 1995 93(2)(b)(c)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Principal Reporter v JPK and Another SCS 21-Jan-2010
. .
At Outer House – Principal Reporter v K SC 15-Dec-2010
The court was asked as to the right of an unmarried father to take part in Children’s hearings under the 1995 Act, and depending on the answer whether the scheme was human rights compliant. K was father of the child, but the mother was unmarried. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347770

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.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1663 (Fam), [2009] 2 FLR 1152, (2009) 109 BMLR 106, [2009] Fam Law 1033

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – In re N (A Child); A v G FD 17-Jul-2009
The unmarried parents fought bitterly over residence contact with the child. . .
See Also – In re N (A Child) FD 6-Aug-2009
. .
See also – Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .
See Also – Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 9-Feb-2010
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.349068

S v S and others: FD 21 Aug 2008

The parties had persisted with repeated applications to prevent removal despite a succession of judges dismissing the cases presented as being without merit. Indeed further proceedings were also lodged on the day of this hearing. Nevertheless the court proceeded without concluding that these wardship proceedings were an abuse.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2288 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 241, [2009] 2 FCR 415, [2009] Fam Law 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.276704