Category: Children

In re S (A Child) (Residence order: condition) (No 2): CA 4 Dec 2002

Butler-Sloss LJ P referred to the exceptionality required before restricting a parents right to remove a child within the jurisdiction, saying: ‘the principle enunciated in Re E . . that the court ought not in other than exceptional circumstances to impose a condition on a residence order to a primary carer who is providing entirely appropriate care for the child.’

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Waller, Laws LJJ

Citations:

[2003] 1 FCR 138, [2002] EWCA Civ 1795

Links:

Bailii

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: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217905

Bowden and Another v Lancashire County Council: CA 16 Apr 2002

The claimant had succeeded in her appeal against the cancellation of her registration as a child minder, and now sought damages for negligence in using unnecessarily the emergency procedure leading to damage to the claimant’s reputation and business.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, May LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 569

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bowden and Another v Lancashire County Council CA 18-Jun-1994
The council had made an ex parte application to the magistrates to cancel the appellant’s registration as a child minder.
Held: The court affirmed the order setting aside the magistrates decision. The circumstances which the council put before . .
Cited – Martine v South East Kent Health Authority CA 22-Mar-1993
The authority applied ex parte under the 1984 to the magistrate for the revocation of the plaitiff’s nursing home licence. It was supported by a written statement of the reasons for making the order made by the health authority’s chief nursing . .
Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.

Cited by:

Cited – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Negligence

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217021

In re Y (A Child): CA 20 Feb 2002

Application by father for leave to appeal against order made in child contact case. The judge had when making a contact order rescinded all earlier orders. The father now said he needed clarification that orders not related to contact had not been rescinded also.
Held: The position was clarified. Leave refused.

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 377

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216874

In re M and M C (Children): CA 12 Mar 2002

At the fact finding hearing, the judge had found that the father, and not the mother, had inflicted the child’s injuries. But the mother later told a social worker, whether accurately or otherwise, that she had inflicted some of them.
Held: At the next hearing, the judge should subject the mother’s apparent confession to rigorous scrutiny and if he concluded that it was true, he should alter his findings.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Neuberger J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 499, [2002] 2 FLR 377, [2003] 1 FLR 461

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216950

P v South Gloucestershire Council: CA 3 Jan 2007

The local authority abandoned its care plan for her child without first consulting her. The mother appealed a refusal by the court to award damages.
Held: The appeal failed. The authority had infringed the mother’s human rights, but her remedy lay in a declaration, and damages were not to be awarded. The breach was purely procedural. The decalaration was an adequate remedy in this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Wilson

Citations:

Times 01-Feb-2007

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – P v South Gloucestershire Council FD 2006
The applicant’s child had been taken into care by the defendant, on the basis of a proposed care plan. The authority abandoned the care plan but without consulting with the mother first. She sought damages saying that the authority had infringed her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children, Damages

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.248914

Brown v Matthews: CA 1990

There is a public interest in encouraging the frank and ready co-operation from people as diverse as doctors, school teachers, neighbours, the child in question, the parents themselves, and other close relations, including other children in the same family, on which the proper functioning of the system depends.
Nicholls LJ said: ‘it is very much in the interests of children generally that potential witnesses in such proceedings are not deterred from giving evidence by the fear that their private affairs or privately expressed views will be exposed to the public gaze.’
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘It seems clear to me that any person asked by a court welfare officer to provide information for such a report, whether a party to the proceedings, a friend or relation of a party, or a doctor or teacher who has treated or taught the child, would know that the information which he or she gives to the welfare officer, and his or her identity as the giver of it, would be made known for the purposes of the court’s inquiry and therefore disclosed to the parties. Most people, I think, would if they thought about it, suppose that the information would not be used for any other purpose but they would be neither surprised nor indignant if told that it could be used for another purpose if the court considered that it was proper, in the interests of justice, for it to be disclosed at the court’s direction. For my part, therefore, I do not think that there is any reason to believe that there would be any significant effect upon the willingness of the people of this country to provide information to court welfare officers in preparing reports for the court, if people were told that normally no use would be made of the information given, save in and for the proceedings in which the report had been ordered but that it might also be used at the order of the court if justice required that it be not limited solely to that primary use.’

Judges:

Nicholls LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1990] Ch 662

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
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: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.194855

Re M (A Child): CA 25 Jul 2002

Application by the maternal grandfather of a little girl called E for permission to appeal against the order refusing his application for contact.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1160

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.217441

RB, Regina (on The Application of) v The Family Court at Cardiff and Others: Admn 6 Mar 2019

Renewed application for leave to appeal rejection of request for judicial review of decision not to allow admission of certain expert evidence.
Held: Refused: ‘ the suggestion that this is a suitable matter for intervention by this court, by way of judicial review, was and is misconceived and wholly without merit.’

Judges:

Andrew Baker J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 785 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.636085

In re WA (A Child) (Abduction) (Consent; Acquiescence; Grave Risk of Harm or Intolerability): FD 10 Nov 2015

Proceedings for summary return under the Hague Convention and Brussels IIR, with two issues arising, did the father consent to or acquiesce in the child’s removal from his home state, and would a return expose the child to grave risk of psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable position?

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3410 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.558990

Re P (Witness Summons): CA 1997

Citations:

[1997] 2 FLR 447

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – LM (A Child) v Medway Council and others CA 19-Jan-2007
Smith LJ set out the approach when a court considered asking a child to attend at court to give evidence in family proceedings: ‘The correct starting point . . is that it is undesirable that a child should have to give evidence in care proceedings . .
Cited – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC 3-Mar-2010
The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.406126

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 the top item in a list of items relevant to the matter in question. I think they connote a process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child’s welfare as that term has now to be understood. That is the first consideration because it is of first importance and the paramount consideration because it rules upon or determines the course to be followed.’ and

‘In applying section 1, the rights and wishes of parents, whether unimpeachable or otherwise, must be assessed and weighed in their bearing on the welfare of the child in conjunction with all other factors relevant to that issue.
While there is now no rule of law that the rights and wishes of unimpeachable parents must prevail over other considerations, such rights and wishes, recognised as they are by nature and society, can be capable of ministering to the total welfare of the child in a special way, and must therefore preponderate in many cases. The parental rights, however, remain qualified and not absolute for the purposes of the investigation the broad nature of which is still as described in the fourth of the principles enunciated by FitzGibbon L.J. in In Re O’Hara [1900] 2 I.R. 232, 240.’

Judges:

Lord MacDermott, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1970] AC 668, [1969] UKHL 4, [1969] 3 WLR 868, [1969] 3 All ER 1140

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gyngall 1893
The father of the child (a girl of about 15) was dead and it was the mother who was the guardian, it seems by operation of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886. The decision of the first instance court not to return the girl to her mother, despite . .
Cited – Re B’s Settlement, B v B 1940
Morton J said: ‘I desire to say quite plainly that in my view this Court is bound in every case, without exception, to treat the welfare of its ward as being the first and paramount consideration, whatever orders may have been made by the Courts of . .
Cited – McKee v McKee PC 15-Mar-1951
(Canada) There was a choice open to the trial judge facing a contest for the custody of a child: ‘It is possible that a case might arise in which it appeared to a court, before which the question of custody of an infant came, that it was in the best . .
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 – 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: . .
Cited – Re J (A Child), Re (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights); (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) HL 16-Jun-2005
The parents had married under shariah law. They left the US to return to the father’s home country Saudi Arabia. They parted, and the mother brought their son to England against the father’s wishes and in breach of an agreement. The father sought . .
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 – 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 L (Psychologist – Duty To The Court) FD 20-Dec-2011
The court had made findings of non-accidental injury caused by the parents. A psychologist called in to assist the court was sympathetic to the parents invited the court to reconsider its findings of fact.
Held: The expert had gone beyond her . .
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.211401

In re G (A Child): FD 22 Jul 2015

Application for the committal to prison of a 50-year-old man made in the course of very long-running proceedings involving a child, ‘G’.

Judges:

Baker J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2941 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.554072

MS v PS: FD 29 Jul 2015

Application by a father for an order under the Hague Child Abduction Convention for the return of his son to Israel.

Judges:

Baker J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2880 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.554073

In Re M (Care Proceedings: Best Evidence): CA 2007

The court considered an application for an order for DNA sequencing to establish paternity in care proceedings.

Citations:

[2007] 2 FLR 1006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re L (A Child: Media Reporting) FD 18-Apr-2011
The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.439722

In re R (Family dispute: Evidence): CA 17 Jul 2008

The mother had made allegations of domestic violence against the father in her claim for a residence order. She appealed dismissal of the claim, saying that the judge had dismissed the case after hearing the mother’s evidence only on the basis that she had not discharged the burden of proof on her.
Held: In a disputed case, the judge should make no finding until all the evidence had been heard. This was a public law case, and the procedure of no case to answer has no place in it. The court had a duty to the child.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

Times 29-Aug-2008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Y and K (Children) CA 7-Apr-2003
. .
Cited – Somerset County Council v DFM (the Father) and Another; In re F CA 31-Jul-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Children

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.279862

In re K (A Child: Stranding: Forum Conveniens: Anti-Suit Injunction): FD 1 Mar 2019

M’s application for return of child from India – F denying jurisdiction – availability of anti-suit injunction in children cases

Judges:

Williams J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 466 (Fam), [2019] 4 WLR 38, [2019] WLR(D) 155

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1986 5(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635810

FT v MM and Another: FD 12 Apr 2019

Dispute as to care of vulnerable young adult man of nineteen who has profound learning disabilities, a citizen of the United States, who presently lives with his father in Texas.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 935 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635814