Category: Children

In re A (Children) (Care proceedings: Asylum seekers): FD 16 May 2003

In the course of care proceedings, it had become apparent that the sole purpose in their continuance by the parents was not that the children were at any real or substantial risk of harm, but rather that their continuance influenced the parents’ ability to stay within the UK. There was no evidence of any risk to the children from being returned to their home country, and a continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 26-May-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.182508

Morris v Crown Office: CA 1970

The applicants had been engaged in a calculated and coordinated campaign of disruption of the court.
Held: ‘The archaic description of these proceedings as ‘contempt of court’ is in my view unfortunate and misleading. It suggests that they are designed to buttress the dignity of the judges and to protect them from insult. Nothing could be further from the truth. No such protection is needed. The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented: Skipworth’s Case, L.R. 9 Q.B. 230 and Rex v Davies [1906] 1 KB 32. This power to commit for what is inappropriately called ‘contempt of court’ is sui generis and has from time immemorial reposed in the judge for the protection of the public.’
Young people are no ordinary criminals: ‘There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but must we show mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course.’
Lord Denning said: ‘of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these courts. The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very foundations of our society.’

Judges:

Salmon, Denning LJJ

Citations:

[1970] 2 QB 114, [1970] 1 All ER 1079

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Skipworth’s Case, Onslow v Skipworth; Regina v Castro 1873
The Attorney-General proceeded against the respondent for contempt, at the request of the Court, and ‘as the representative of the profession’. A contempt may be severe where an insult is offered in court to the judge who presides, or where a . .
Cited – Rex v Davies 1906
The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented . .

Cited by:

Cited – HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .
Cited – Re West CACD 17-Jul-2014
W, a barrister, appealed against a conviction for contempt of court. He had declined to comply with the directions asked of him by the judge at a pre-trial hearing, saying that the client’s instructions that he was not guilty were sufficient. He was . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.564992

Re AB: FC 28 May 2015

Two applications in relation to AB who was born in 2013 and is 2 years old. He is the son of ZX (the father) and ZA (the mother). The mother, supported by the father, has made an application to discharge the care order that AB is subject to. The LA has applied for a placement order for AB.

Judges:

Pemberton HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWFC B58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.547161

In re D (A Child): FD 8 Mar 2011

The court heard the father’s application for an order for the return of the child to this jurisdiction pursuant to Article 11 (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters of Parental Responsibility (hereafter ‘BIIR’). The child was currently in the care of her mother in Poland. She had been there since April 2010 when the mother wrongfully retained her there. Prior to that the parties had lived and were habitually resident in England.

Judges:

Theis J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 471 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.440080

Birmingham City Council v S and others: FD 1 Dec 2006

Care proceedings had been issued in respect of A at birth. The father sought a decision as to whether the paternal parents could be informed of the birth. He was from a Muslim background and feared that if told at the wrong time they might reject A.

Judges:

Sumner J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3065 (Fam), [2007] UKHRR 588, [2007] 1 FLR 1223, [2007] Fam Law 300

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279029

DJ v MS: FD 10 Apr 2006

Appeal by a father, D J, from an order placing a restriction on the father’s ability to make any further applications to the court pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act. The order was made in the context of an application by the father for contact to his daughter,
Held: The District Judge went too far: ‘the power to restrict applications to the court is discretionary and in the exercise of its discretion the court must weigh in the balance all the relevant circumstances. The third one, an important consideration, is that to impose a restriction is a statutory intrusion to the right of a party to bring proceedings before the court and to be heard in matters affecting his/her child. Fourthly, the power is therefore to be used with great care and sparingly, the exception and not the rule. Fifthly, it is generally to be seen as a weapon of last resort in cases of repeated and unreasonable applications. Of course any attempt to define circumstances in which this very useful power is or is not employed always falls foul of some specific factor, but I do bear those matters very much in mind. However, I think, as I have indicated, that on this particular occasion this extremely experienced district judge went further than he should or needed to in the circumstances.’

Judges:

Coleridge J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1491 (Fam), [2006] 2 FLR 1213

Links:

Bailii

Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279018

In re L (A Child): FD 19 Apr 2008

Both the Local authority and the child’s Guardian ad litem argued for the child to be removed from the mother before the final hearing to protect from the harm which the presence of the mother’s partner undubitably risked. The mother responded by saying she needed support to help her separate from him and she sought a residential assessment.
Held: The assessment was ordered. The apparent assumption by the Authority and by the guradian that all that was needed to be demonstrated by them was that the interim threshold were conditions were met, for removal should follow as night follows day, was fundamentally incorrect: ‘That is a profound error of perception that regrettably on the facts of this case amounts also to an error of law. Nowhere is there a recognition that removal is a separate consideration from the existence of the interim threshold or the need for an interim order’. The applicants had failed to consider whether the particular risk required the separation requested.
He set out the applicable priinciples

Judges:

Ryder J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3404 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 575, [2008] Fam Law 399

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H (A Child) (Interim Care Order) CA 12-Dec-2002
Once the threshhold criteria for a care order have been met, the court must still enquire on an application for an interim care order, as to whether there is an imminent risk of really serious harm to the child, whether the risk to the child’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279032

in Re B; RB v FB and MA (Forced Marriage: Wardship: Jurisdiction): FD 15 Apr 2008

The court exercised the wardship jurisdiction in respect of a 15 year old girl born and brought up in Pakistan, who had never been here but did have dual Pakistani and British nationality. She had gone to the High Commission in Islamabad asking to be rescued from a forced marriage and helped to come to Scotland to live with her half-brother. The High Commission wanted to help her but felt unable to do so without the backing of a court order. Hogg J made the girl a ward of court and ordered that she be brought to this country. The half-brother was assessed as offering a suitable home and in fact she went to him. Hogg J explained that she thought the circumstances ‘sufficiently dire and exceptional’

Judges:

Hogg J

Citations:

[2008] 2 FLR 1624, [2008] Fam Law 983, [2008] EWHC 1436 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278550

D v Buckinghamshire County Council: CA 10 Dec 2008

Hedley J explained the background to the 2006 Act, saying: ‘This multiplicity of lists and division of responsibilities was always likely to provide fertile soil for confusion and error as was pointed out in the Report in June 2004 of the Bichard Inquiry. As a result Parliament legislated again and there came on to the Statute book the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 the purpose of which was to harmonise and unify the various statutory lists. The Act legislates for an Independent Barring Board which will in fact be known in practice as the Independent Safeguarding Authority. The intention is that this authority will take all the discretionary barring decisions presently taken by the relevant Secretaries of State and that the various lists (civil and criminal) will be replaced with two lists: one relating to children and one to vulnerable adults. It will also widen the scope of the activities covered.’

Judges:

Hedley J

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1372, [2009] 1 FLR 881

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Children Act 1999, Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278644

In re Wyatt: FD 23 Feb 2006

Judges:

Hedley J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 319 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Health, Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279016

In re F-H (Children): CA 10 Sep 2008

The court was asked: ‘In what circumstances is it appropriate for a judge, at the outset of a pre-arranged fact-finding hearing, to decline to conduct it?’

Judges:

Longmore, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1249, [2009] 1 FLR 349, [2009] 1 FCR 749, [2009] Fam Law 10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277914

In re A (A Child) (Abduction: Contempt): CA 21 Aug 2008

The father apealed against his sentence of committal for contempt of court in the course of children proceedings. During a dispute over residence, he took the child to his family in Syria and returned alone. He had then disobeyed orders requiring him to secure his son’s return to England. Syria is not a party to any international convention for the return of abducted children. He now contended that that there was no sufficient evidence of contempt of court and that the approach taken by mother effectively reversed the onus of proof by requiring father to demonstrate that he was unable to effect the return of the child, rather than accepting that it was mother’s responsibility to demonstrate that he was in deliberate breach of the order.
Held: If it be the case that father cannot cause the return of the child he is not in contempt of court, however disgraceful and/or criminal the original abduction may have been. Nor is it enough to suspect recalcitrance, it has to be proved. Various difficulties arose with different proposed means of bringing him back, and the mother had adduced no evidence to suggest how it might in fact be arranged. In the absence of such, a finding that the breach was deliberate must fail, and the appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Hughes, Thomas, Keene LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1138, [2009] 1 FLR 1, [2009] 1 WLR 1482, [2008] Fam Law 1189

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
Cited – Re W (A Child) (Abduction: Committal) CA 17-Aug-2011
If the sentence for an original breach of a court order has expired without compliance on the part of the contemnor – then it is necessary first to make another order specifying another date for compliance, followed, in the event of non-compliance, . .
Cited – Button v Salama FD 2-Jul-2013
An order had been made placing the child of the parties under wardship. The mother now applied for an order to commit the father to prison for contempt of court in failing to abide by orders made. He had taken the child to Egypt, and now said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277353

In Re KD (A Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access): HL 1988

The local authority sought to terminate parental contact with a child taken into care under a wardship.
Held: The court had to consider the human rights of the parent as against the welfare interest of the child. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘My Lords I do not, for my part, discern any conflict between the propositions laid down by your Lordships’ House in J. v C. and the pronouncements of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the natural parent’s right of access to her child. Such conflict as exists, is, I think, semantic only and lies only in differing ways of giving expression to the single concept that the natural bond in the relationship between parent and child gives rise to universally recognised norms which ought not to be gratuitously interfered with and which, if interfered with at all, ought to be so only if the welfare of the child dictates it. The word ‘right’ is used in a variety of different senses, both popular and jurisprudential . . Parenthood, in most civilised societies, is generally conceived of as conferring upon parents the exclusive privilege of ordering, within the family, the upbringing of children of tender age, with all that that entails. That is a privilege which, interfered with without authority, would be protected by the courts, but it is a privilege circumscribed by many limitations imposed both by the general law and, where circumstances demand, by the courts or by the authorities upon whom the legislature has imposed the duty of supervising the welfare of children and young persons. When the jurisdiction of the court is invoked for the protection of the child the parental privileges do not terminate. They do, however, become immediately subservient to the paramount consideration which the court has always in mind, that is to say, the welfare of the child. That is the basis of the decision of your Lordships’ House in J. v C. [1970] A.C. 668 and I see nothing in R. v United Kingdom (Case 6/1986/104/152) which contradicts or casts any doubt upon that decision or which calls now for any re-appraisal of it by your Lordships. In particular the description of those familial rights and privileges enjoyed by parents in relation to their children as ‘fundamental’ or ‘basic’ does nothing, in my judgment, to clarify either the nature or the extent of the concept which it is sought to describe.’
Lord Templeman said: ‘Public authorities cannot improve on nature.’ and ‘The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not endangered.’

Judges:

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1988] 1 All ER 577, [1988] 2 WLR 398, [1988] AC 806

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – J v C (An Infant) HL 19-Feb-1969
The House sought to construe the meaning of the words ‘shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration’. Lord MacDermott said: ‘it seems to me that they must mean more than that the child’s welfare is to be treated as . .
Cited – Re O’Hara 1900
(Ireland) FitzGibbon LJ SAID: ‘In exercising the jurisdiction to control or to ignore the parental right the court must act cautiously, not as if it were a private person acting with regard to his own child, and acting in opposition to the parent . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – CG v CW and Another (Children) CA 6-Apr-2006
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to . .
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 . .
Cited – Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) FD 2007
Toleration of Diverse Parenting Standards
Hedley J considered the meaning of ‘significant harm’: ‘What about the court’s approach . . to the issue of significant harm? In order to understand this concept and the range of harm that it’s intended to encompass, it is right to begin with issues . .
Cited – Re MA and Others (Children) CA 31-Jul-2009
Children appealed against dismissal of their care proceedings on the basis that the threshold had not been reached. The parents resisted.
Held: It could not be said that the decision so plainly wrong that the judge’s conclusion on the facts . .
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 – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Cited – Re EV (A Child) SC 1-Mar-2017
Appeal from application for permanence order. EV had been in care from her birth. Her parents, each with long standing learning difficulties opposed the order.
Held: The Court allowed the parents’ appeals. The meeting of the threshold test was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.213652

In re B (Children) (Removal from jurisdiction); In re S (Child) (Removal from jurisdiction): CA 30 Jul 2003

Mothers appealed refusal of leave to remove their children from the jurisdiction so that they could make a life with a new partner.
Held: The case of Payne was not directly of effect, because the mother there was returning to her home country. It did show the need to see where the new family would naturally live. The degree of attachment and commitment of the new partners was a factor which could be decisive. It was not a question of putting the mother’s interests before the child but of recognising that if the child was to be with the mother and if the mother’s life would take her abroad, the child should follow in reality. To act otherwise would unduly restrict proper migration.

Judges:

Thorpe, Judge, Sedley LLJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1149, Times 29-Aug-2003, [2003] Fam Law 820, [2003] 2 FLR 1043, [2003] 2 FCR 673

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Children, International

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.184895

In Re C (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment): HL 29 Nov 1996

The parents were suspected of causing the child non-accidental injury. The court wanted a residential assessment of the family, but the local authority refused, saying it would be too expensive, and would expose the child to continuing risk. The judge made an interim care order and gave an order for a residential assessment. The parents now appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal reversing that order.
Held: The parents’ appeal succeeded. An order for an assessment of a child together with the child’s family in a residential unit was within the power of the court assessing the need for a care order, and the court had power to override the authority’s objections if that was required to make its own decision. The section is to be given a wide reading, and the Act read purposively. Sections 38 (6) and (7) were not restricted to medical and psychiatric assessment alone. It was clear from the Act that ‘any other assessment’ of the child could be ordered. This could cover an assessment of the interaction between the child and parent. Though the the court may not order a child or a parent to participate in an assessment under s 38(6) it can override the powers the Local Authority.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘This broad approach is supported by consideration of s 38(7) which does not appear to have been drawn to the attention of the Court of Appeal either in Re M or in the present case. Subsection (7) confers on the court the power to prohibit an examination or assessment which the local authority is proposing to make. It is manifestly directed to the type of conduct by social services revealed by the Cleveland Inquiry, ie repeated interviews and assessments of the child and his parents which are detrimental to the child. This negative control by the court cannot have been intended to be limited to cases where the child, and only the child, is to be assessed. If it is to be fully effective to prevent damage to the child, the power under s 38(7) must also extend to cases where it is proposed to assess the relationship between the parents and the child.’ and ‘ . . it is impossible to assess a young child divorced from his environment. The interaction between the child and his parents or other persons looking after him is an essential element in making any assessment of the child.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-1996, [1996] UKHL 4, [1997] AC 489, [1996] 4 All ER 871, [1997] 1 FLR 1, [1997] Fam Law 228, [1997] 1 FCR 149, 95 LGR 367

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6) 38(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not Followed – In Re M (Interim Care Order: Assessment) CA 2-Jan-1996
There was no jurisdiction under section 38(6) to order residential assessment of a family involved in care proceedings. The words ‘other assessment of the child’ had to be construed as ejusdem generis with the words ‘medical or psychiatric . .
Cited – In re L CA 1996
In exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, the court’s function is investigative and non-adversarial. Ward LJ: the court had no power to order a residential assessment at a specified place. Millett LJ agreed, but said that a judge could impose ‘a . .

Cited by:

Cited – In Re M (Residential Assessment Directions) FD 23-Sep-1998
When ordering a local authority to pay the costs of residential assessment of mother and child, the court should allow for these factors. It must be assessment not treatment, in long term interests of the child, to enable court to decide and not . .
Cited – SD, Re Application for Judicial Review OHCS 2-Oct-2003
Parents sought judicial review of a decision not to open a Record of Needs for their child. A report said that the child was dyslexic. The applicants said his condition had not improved after an earlier request to open a record had been refused.
Cited – In re G (a Child) (Interim Care order: Residential assessment) CA 27-Jan-2004
An elder child had died, and the local authority felt unable to exculpate either the father or the mother. On the birth of this child all three had been brought in for a residential assessment. First one then another extension was sought. The court . .
Applied – Re M (Residential Assessment Directions) CA 1997
The mother was seen to be unstable with a history of self harm, and with a violent association. Two older children were in care, and despite psychiatric evidence that she was improving the authority resisted a suggestion that there be a residential . .
Cited – Kent County Council v G and others HL 24-Nov-2005
A residential assessment order had been made under the 1989 Act in care proceedings. When the centre recommended a second extension of the assessment, the council refused, saying that the true purpose was not the assessment of the child but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.81774

Shears v Mendeloff: 1914

The defendant, an infant professional boxer, contracted with the plaintiff to act as his sole manager on commission.
Held: The contract was not enforceable against the plaintiff. It was a trading contract, and as such was not to be enforced against him.
After the jury had brought in their verdict for the plaintiff, having on further consideration come to the conclusion the judge ought not to have left the case to them, entered judgment for the defendant.

Judges:

Avory J

Citations:

(1914) 30 TLR 342

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.640529

Walter v Everard: CA 1891

Action by a master against his apprentice when the latter was of age for pounds 300, the balance of premium due under the defendant’s covenant in the apprenticeship deed. A clear question arose as to whether such a covenant was enforceable as such.
Held: It was not. An action may be maintained against an infant himself after he has attained his majority, to enforce the covenants of an unrepudiated deed of apprenticeship, since the deed was a proper one, the arrangement fair and the premium fair and reasonable.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It is not true that you can sue an infant upon a bond given by him for the price of necessaries supplied to him with all the ordinary incidents of such an action . . You cannot sue the infant upon his bond as a bond. But if the bond is what is called a single bond – that is, if it is given only for the reasonable price of the necessaries supplied to the infant and there is no penalty, the infant can be sued upon it. . . It comes in the result to this, that a bond given by an infant for the price of necessaries does not prevent the obligee from recovering that price from him if the bond is a single one, and it is not relied on simply as a bond. In the same way an infant can be sued upon a covenant by deed for the price of necessaries but the case must be treated just as if there had been no deed.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

[1891] 2 QB 369

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Children, Employment

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.640527

Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 19 Oct 2016

The court was asked: ‘Is it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to deny British citizenship to the child of a British father and a non-British mother simply because they were not married to one another at the time of his birth or at any time thereafter? If the parents had been married to one another, their child would have been a British citizen. If the mother had been British and the father non-British, their child would have been a British citizen. If the child had been born after 1 July 2006 he would have been a British citizen. The child is not responsible for the marital status of his parents or the date of his birth, yet it is he who suffers the consequences.’
Held: The appeal was allowed. The liability to deportation by reason of the accident of his birth outside wedlock was unlawfully discriminatory.
The right to a nationality is not as such a Convention right but denial of citizenship when it has
important effects on a person’s identity falls within the ambit of article 8 and so triggers the application
of the prohibition of discrimination in article 14. Birth outside wedlock is a ‘status’ for the
purpose of article 14 and falls within the class of ‘suspect’ grounds where very weighty reasons are
required to justify discrimination. In Mr Johnson’s case, what needed to be justified was his
current liability to deportation when he would not be so liable but for the accident of birth outside
wedlock for which he was not responsible. No justification had been suggested for this and it cannot
therefore be said that his claim that deportation would breach his Convention rights was clearly unfounded.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 56, UKSC 2016/0042, [2016] WLR(D) 531, [2017] AC 365, [2017] INLR 235, [2016] 3 WLR 1267, [2017] Imm AR 306, 41 BHRC 711

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Genovese v Malta ECHR 11-Oct-2011
The applicant was illegitimate, born to a British mother and a Maltese father. Paternity had been established scientifically and in judicial proceedings. The father refused to recognise his son on the birth certificate, and the applicant’s mother . .
At Admn – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 17-Jul-2014
The court was asked whether the Claimant’s proposed deportation to Jamaica, following his conviction and imprisonment for a very serious criminal offence, involves a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the European Convention on . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Jan-2016
The appellant was Jamaican by birth, but had lived here with his British father since the age of four. Had his parents been married, he would have had British nationality. As he grew to an adult he was convicted on several serious matters. He now . .
At CA – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Jan-2016
The appellant was Jamaican by birth, but had lived here with his British father since the age of four. Had his parents been married, he would have had British nationality. As he grew to an adult he was convicted on several serious matters. He now . .
Cited – K v Netherlands ECHR 1-Jul-1985
Discrimination; Immigration; Nationality; Right to respect for private and family life . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Karassev v Finland ECHR 12-Jan-1999
Admissibility. The arbitrary denial of citizenship may violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8. The Convention did not guarantee the right to acquire a particular nationality. Nevertheless, it did ‘not exclude that an arbitrary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.570161

William Morrison of Preston Grange, Esq v John Viscount Arbuthnot: HL 27 Mar 1728

Minor – pactum illicitum – A discharge by a minor without curators of part of the tocher stipulated in his contract of marriage, being granted privately before solemnization of the marriage, and without the concurrence of the friends who were assisting him in the marriage treaty, reduced at the instance of the granter, on the head of minority and lesion, and as being contra fidem tabularum nuptialium.

Citations:

[1728] UKHL 1 – Paton – 7, (1728) 1 Paton 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.554247

M v W (declaration of parentage): FD 2007

The court made a declaration of parentage where the legal parentage differs from the biological parentage of a child, in this case, where the child was subsequently adopted but wished to have acknowledgement of their ‘natural’ or biological parentage. Hogg J said: ‘The declaration [of natural parentage] sought would not alter or affect the validity of the adoption order made in May 1965. That is a forever order by which the petitioner became a legal member of the adoptive family and the adopters his legal parents.’

Judges:

Hogg J

Citations:

[2007] 2 FLR 270

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1986 55A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.442012

Uner v The Netherlands: ECHR 18 Oct 2006

(Grand Chamber) The court considered the application of article 8 considerations in extradition and similar proceedings, and said: ‘the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any children of the applicant are likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled; and
– the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.’ and
‘The Court considered itself called upon to establish ‘guiding principles’ in the Boultif case because it had ‘only a limited number of decided cases where the main obstacle to expulsion was that it would entail difficulties for the spouses to stay together and, in particular, for one of them and/or the children to live in the other’s country of origin’ . . It is to be noted, however, that the first three guiding principles do not, as such, relate to family life. This leads the Court to consider whether the ‘Boultif criteria’ are sufficiently comprehensive to render them suitable for application in all cases concerning the expulsion and/or exclusion of settled migrants following a criminal conviction. It observes in this context that not all such migrants, no matter how long they have been residing in the country from which they are to be expelled, necessarily enjoy ‘family life’ there within the meaning of article 8. However, as article 8 also protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see Pretty v the United Kingdom, no.2346/02, [61], (2002) 35 EHRR 1) and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual’s society identity (see Mikulic v Croatia, No.53176/99, [53], BAILII: [2002] ECHR 27), it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants and the community in which they are living constitute part of the concept of ‘private life’ within the meaning of article 8. Regardless of the existence or otherwise of a ‘family life’, therefore, the court considers that the expulsion of a settled migrant constitutes interference with his or her right to respect for private life. It will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the ‘family life’ rather than the ‘private life’ aspect.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that all the above factors (see [57]-[59]) should be taken into account in all cases concerning settled migrants who are to be expelled and/or excluded following a criminal conviction.’

Citations:

[2006] ECHR 873, [2007] INLR 273, [2007] Imm AR 303, (2007) 45 EHRR 14, 46410/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Confirmed – Boultif v Switzerland ECHR 2-Aug-2001
The applicant complained under Article 8 that the Swiss authorities had not renewed his residence permit, after which he had been separated from his wife, a Swiss citizen and who could not be expected to follow him to Algeria. Switzerland argued . .
See Also – Uner v The Netherlands ECHR 5-Jul-2005
Where a court considered the expulsion of a non-national who was long settled but had been convicted of criminal offences, the interest and well-being of any child of the family must be considered. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Cited – MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
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 . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Immigration

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.401809

Wharton v Mackenzie: 2 Feb 1844

The plaintiff sought payment for assorted fruit, confectionery and other foods sold to the defendant, who now pleaded infancy, and that these were not necessaries appropriate to the defendant’s then degree, estate, circumstances and condition of the said defendant. The plaintiff said that the defendant was an undergraduate student at Oxford associating with others of rank and fortunes, and used the goods for their entertainment, that he had a medical condition for which some of the goods were prescribed, and that his father was Governor of Ceylon. The judge told the jury that they should when considering whether the goods were necessaries should allow for his condition in life.
Held: there can be occasion where beverages may not constitute necessaries.

Judges:

Lord Denmen CJ

Citations:

[1844] EngR 205, (1844) 5 QB 606, (1844) 114 ER 1378

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.304797

Dacre and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and others: Admn 16 Jul 2008

The claimants, a newspaper and its editor sought judicial review of a refusal to stay private prosecutions brought against them alleging breach of requirements that they not identify children involved in court proceedings, in this case those of the prosecutor.
Held: This was ‘a clear case where the court’s conscience is offended by the fact that the prosecution is brought by a person who by her conduct was likely, if not certain, to identify the child as being the subject of proceedings to which s.97 applied. I would accordingly allow the claim, quash the district judge’s decision and stay the prosecutions as an abuse of the court.’

Judges:

Latham LJ, bennett J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1667 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2241, [2009] 1 Cr App R 6, [2009] Crim LR 100, [2009] 1 Cr App Rep 6, [2009] 1 All ER 639

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 97 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278255

M, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barnet: Admn 6 Aug 2008

Challenge to the alleged ongoing refusal by the defendant to acknowledge its obligations to her under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and therefore its alleged ongoing failure to comply with its obligations to her as a looked after, and therefore an eligible, child for the purposes of the leaving care provisions.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2354 (Admin), [2008] Fam Law 1197, [2009] 2 FLR 725

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Local Government

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276993

W, Regina (on the Application of) v North Lincolnshire Council: Admn 30 Jul 2008

W sought assistance from the Council. As a 17 year old without significant family support he had been released from custody and was entitled to admitted support under section 20 of the 1989 Act.

Judges:

Mackie QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2299 (Admin), [2008] 2 FLR 2150, [2008] Fam Law 1196

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17 19 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276988

In re S (A Child): CA 12 Aug 2008

The mother of the child applied for leave to appeal against an order under section 38(9), seeking a residential assessment.
Held: The judge had been exercising a discretion which he had done properly, and the court would not interfere with it.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1078

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re L and H (Residential Assessment); CT and Another v Bristol City Council and others CA 14-Mar-2007
Application for leave to appeal against refusal to order residential assessment under section 38(6). ECHR Articles 6 and 8, and the underlying philosophy of the 1989 Act, required that a case be fully investigated and that all the relevant evidence . .
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: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276834

In re B (Children): CA 22 Jul 2008

The court heard an application for leave to appeal. The mother wished to return to Germany with the children. The father sought a residence order with him in England.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Rix LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1034

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276656

KR, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2008

The claimant had been involved in child contact and residence proceedings as a result of which the children travelled extensively between two towns. He now appealed after withdrawal of the community care grants made to meet the cost of the travel.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1881 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Benefits

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272814

Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing human rights grounds. The respondent had a policy that the applicant must return to the home country and make her application from there.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Particularly in cases involving the human rights of children caution must be exercised before requiring out of country applications.
Lord Scott of Foscote: ‘policies that involve people cannot be, and should not be allowed to become, rigid inflexible rules. The bureaucracy of which Kafka wrote cannot be allowed to take root in this country and the courts must see that it does not. ‘ and ‘it must be disproportionate to expect a four year old girl, who was born and has lived all her life here, either to be separated from her mother for some months or to travel with her mother to endure the ‘harsh and unpalatable’ conditions in Zimbabwe simply in order to enforce the entry clearance procedures.’
Lord Brown: ‘This appellant came to the UK to seek asylum, met an old friend from Zimbabwe, married him and had a child. He is now settled here as a refugee and cannot return. No one apparently doubts that, in the longer term, this family will have to be allowed to live together here. Is it really to be said that effective immigration control requires that the appellant and her child must first travel back (perhaps at the taxpayer’s expense) to Zimbabwe, a country to which the enforced return of failed asylum-seekers remained suspended for more than two years after the appellant’s marriage and where conditions are ‘harsh and unpalatable’, and remain there for some months obtaining entry clearance, before finally she can return (at her own expense) to the UK to resume her family life which meantime will have been gravely disrupted? Surely one has only to ask the question to recognise the right answer. ‘

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscot, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 40, [2008] 1 WLR 1420, Times 26-Jun-2008, [2009] 1 All ER 363, [2008] HRLR 39, [2008] INLR 502, [2008] UKHRR 1008, [2008] Imm AR 700

Links:

Bailii, HL

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 82 84, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2005
The appellant arrived aged 19 from Sierra Leone and was granted leave to enter as a student, which leave was extended. His famiy had been politically active and suffered abuse after a coup. When his leave expired he applied for asylum. Other family . .
Applied – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
Appeal from – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Nov-2005
The claimant was ordered to return to Zimbabwe to make her asylum claim from there. She argued that it would infringe her human rights. She now had a young daughter here. The IAT had dismissed her appeal on the basis that the appellant could and . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – Ekinci, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jun-2003
The appellant, a Turkish citizen entered illegally and claimed asylum. He falsely said he had not sought asylum in another EC country. He had lived in Germany for eight years, and had twice unsuccessfully claimed asylum. Shortly after arrangements . .
Cited – Mukarkar v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Jul-2006
The applicant, a Yemeni citizen, obtained entry clearance as a visitor by deception and then unsuccessfully sought leave to remain as a dependent relative of his many children settled here. He had numerous ailments and his health was continuing to . .
Cited – Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2001
The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He . .
Cited – SB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-Jan-2007
A Bangladeshi woman entered into an arranged polygamous marriage in Bangladesh and many years later dishonestly (led by her husband) obtained entry clearance as a visitor before then unsuccessfully seeking leave to remain as being financially . .

Cited by:

Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – MA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 27-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against refusal of leave to enter and cancelling his leave to remain. He had made his claim on human rights grounds, saying that the refusal would split him from his wife. He had been told that he would have to renew his . .
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 . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Cited – Agyarko and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
Appeals against orders for removal after applicants had each married after expiry of the period of their lawful stay. A conceded that her application fell outside the Rules, but said that it was an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Children

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.270385

Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Nov 2005

The claimant was ordered to return to Zimbabwe to make her asylum claim from there. She argued that it would infringe her human rights. She now had a young daughter here. The IAT had dismissed her appeal on the basis that the appellant could and should return to Zimbabwe to apply there for entry clearance to return to the UK. They believed that her separation from her husband (who they accepted faced ‘an insurmountable obstacle to his own return to Zimbabwe’) would be for ‘a relatively short period’.
Held: Her appeal failed. Auld LJ said ‘[T]he fact that someone who has arrived in this country without the required entry clearance may be able to show that he would have been entitled to one does not, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, allow him to remain here without it.’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Jonathan Parker and Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1779

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Appeal from – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing . .
Cited – SB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-Jan-2007
A Bangladeshi woman entered into an arranged polygamous marriage in Bangladesh and many years later dishonestly (led by her husband) obtained entry clearance as a visitor before then unsuccessfully seeking leave to remain as being financially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Children

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.238607

In Re M (Residential Assessment Directions): FD 23 Sep 1998

When ordering a local authority to pay the costs of residential assessment of mother and child, the court should allow for these factors. It must be assessment not treatment, in long term interests of the child, to enable court to decide and not unreasonable. As to Re C: ‘ . . it does seem to me that both the words of the section and the language of Lord Browne-Wilkinson nevertheless impose some limits on the extent of the court’s powers. They are limited to a process that can properly be characterised as ‘assessment’ rather than ‘treatment’, although no doubt all treatment is accompanied by a continuing process of assessment. And they are limited to a process which bona fide involves the participation of the child as an integral part of what is being assessed.’

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

Gazette 23-Sep-1998, [1998] 2 FLR 371

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re C (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) HL 29-Nov-1996
The parents were suspected of causing the child non-accidental injury. The court wanted a residential assessment of the family, but the local authority refused, saying it would be too expensive, and would expose the child to continuing risk. The . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – In re G (a Child) (Interim Care order: Residential assessment) CA 27-Jan-2004
An elder child had died, and the local authority felt unable to exculpate either the father or the mother. On the birth of this child all three had been brought in for a residential assessment. First one then another extension was sought. The court . .
Cited – Re D (Jurisdiction: Programme of Assessment or Therapy) CA 12-May-1999
The parents were dependent on drugs. The guardian ad litem proposed that the authority should fund treatment of the parents and child in a residential unit with assessment. The authority proposed a detoxification programme. The authority appealed an . .
Cited – Kent County Council v G and others HL 24-Nov-2005
A residential assessment order had been made under the 1989 Act in care proceedings. When the centre recommended a second extension of the assessment, the council refused, saying that the true purpose was not the assessment of the child but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.85829

Re R (Children): CA 5 Mar 2015

Appeal by a girl of 14 years against an order refusing permission for her to give oral evidence in care proceedings relating to herself and her younger sister. The case turns on an allegation that the father sexually abused each of the two children and that the mother failed to protect the children from exposure to sexual abuse and inappropriate sexualised behaviour within the household.

Judges:

Lady Justice King

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 167

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.543889

Liverpool City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon and AK: Admn 18 Jul 2008

Two local authorities disputed who should take responsibility for the care of a vulnerable young person. He had first claimed asylum in Liverpool, then was detained in Oxfordshire and last in Hillingdon who returned him on his request to Liverpool, who then refused responsibility.
Held: The connection was with Liverpool, and Hillingdon’s involvement ceased on his return to Liverpool.

Judges:

Goudie QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1702 (Admin), Times 03-Oct-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Liverpool City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon and Another CA 10-Feb-2009
The applicant asylum-seeker had arrived in Hillingdon and claimed that he required assistance, that he was a child, and that he wanted to go to Liverpool. Hillingdon had assisted him to do so. Liverpool now appealed against a finding that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government, Immigration

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271103

Medway Council v G and others: FD 18 Jul 2008

The court considered the extent of publicity for a case where the local authority was to be criticised.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1681 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 1687

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Media, Children

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.270964

In re LM (Reporting Restrictions: Coroner’s Inquest): FD 1 Aug 2007

An application was made for an injunction to control reporting of a coroner’s inquest to protect the interests of children of the deceased.
Held: Coroners’ inquests are subject to the same controls as other courts for the purposes of controlling media reports. In this case it was permissibe to report the names and addresses of the deceased and his wife, but the media could not report in any way which alluded to the existence of LM.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P

Citations:

Times 20-Nov-2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Coroners, Media, Children

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.261775

A and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: FD 27 Nov 2002

Applications had been made by fathers for specific issue orders that their children be immunised. The respondents sought orders to allow the cases to be either heard in open court or for other reporting restrictions to be lifted. As a result of their application, the time allocated for the substantive hearings had been severely compromised, and costs were sought against them.
Held: A timely application by the media should not result in a costs order, but here the applications had been late, and had considerably disrupted the hearing. Even if the application was arguable, as it was here, it was not for the media to argue that the individuals involved should themselves have taken any steps. The matter of whether reporting should be allowed and on what terms was for the court alone. An application which was late might be viewed as improper for that very reason, if disruption resulted. Here, however, a pre-trial order might have raised expectations that reporting would be allowed, and a costs order was not appropriate.

Judges:

Sumner J

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Children, Media, Costs

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.178369

In re N (A Child); A v G: FD 17 Jul 2009

The unmarried parents fought bitterly over residence contact with the child.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1807 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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. . .
Cited – G v A; Re N (Payments for Benefit of Child) FD 20-Jan-2009
. .

Cited by:

See Also – In re N (A Child) FD 6-Aug-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.371672

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.

Judges:

Thorpe, Lloyd, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1055, [2008] Fam Law 17, [2008] 1 FLR 613

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Children

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270402

Re M (Disclosure: Children and Family Reporter): CA 31 Jul 2002

The question arose as to whether a Cafcass officer acting as a children and family reporter (CFR) in private law proceedings required the permission of the court before referring to the local authority’s social services department for further investigation allegations by the child’s mother about the child’s father made by her to the CFR in the course of the CFR’s inquiries but before the CFR had prepared her report.
Held: The information given to the CFR by the child’s mother was ‘information relating to the proceedings’ within the meaning of section 12.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Wall J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1199, [2002] 3 FCR 208, (2002) 99(39) LSG 37, [2002] 2 FLR 893, [2003] Fam Law 96, [2003] Fam 26, [2002] 3 WLR 1669, [2002] 4 All ER 401

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1960 12(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Children

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270474

In re P (A Child): CA 16 Nov 2006

Appeal by mother against order for committal to prison for breach of order requiring her to allow contact for the child with the father.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P, Neuberger, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1792, [2007] Fam Law 299, [2007] 1 FLR 1820

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270198