Category: Children

Re K (A Child): CA 8 Aug 2018

Appeal against an order declining to direct the local authority to return a child, ‘K’ to the care of the appellant mother upon his anticipated release from hospital where he was being treated for meningitis.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2512

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.628676

In re T (Children): CA 18 Jun 2015

Guidance on the incorporation of time for judgment writing when determining the timetable, under section 32 of the Children Act 1989, for the disposal of an application for a care or supervision order.

Judges:

Aikens, McFarlane, Bean LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 606, [2016] 1 WLR 14, [2015] WLR(D) 264, [2015] Fam Law 1054

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.549115

In re G (Children) (Foreign contact order: Enforcement): CA 11 Nov 2003

The father sought to have registered here, a French order for parental contact. The mother had brought the child to England with the consent of the court, and then obtained an apparently conflicting order here.
Held: There was a conflict between the Regulation and the Convention as scheduled to the 1985 Act. The London order had been expressly set out in order to allow the gradual bringing into effect of the French order, and so did not conflict with it. Access orders cannot be treated as having been written in stone, and enforcement after some time and in different circumstances may be problematic. The Regulation prevailed over the Act. When the mother became resident in England, the French court ceased to have exclusive jurisdiction. The judge was correct to order the registration of the father’s order here and to make his own order. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Thorpe, Potter, Tuckey LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-2003, Gazette 08-Jan-2004, Gazette 15-Jan-2004

Statutes:

Council Regulation EC/1347/2000, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, European

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.188222

Griffiths v Tickle and Others: CA 10 Dec 2021

Appeal against a decision of the High Court that a fact-finding judgment in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 should be published with the names of the father and the mother included, and only relatively modest redactions, primarily aimed at mitigating the impact of publication on the couple’s infant child. The appellant is the father, against whom findings were made. He accepts that the judgment can be published but contends that the interests of the child make it necessary that he, the mother, and the child should all be anonymised and that there should be additional redaction of some details.
Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD said: ‘But the firmly established starting point in the domestic jurisprudence is the principle of open justice. The general rule is that proceedings are held in public and what is said, including the names of the parties and witnesses, can be observed and reported. In a case which involves the ‘determination’ of criminal liability or civil rights and obligations, Article 6 confers on each party to litigation the right to a public hearing and a public judgment.’

Judges:

Dame Victoria Sharp,
(President of the Queen’S Bench Division),
Lady Justice King,
And,
Lord Justice Warby

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 1882

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions) FC 13-Jun-2022
H sought an order restricting reporting of the divorce financial remedy proceedings, or an anonymity order.
Held: The application was refused save as to identification of the children, and certain tax matters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.670460

Article 39, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Education: CA 24 Nov 2020

Appeal against an order dismissing the appellant’s claim for judicial review by which it sought to challenge the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 introduced by the Secretary of State for Education in response to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Amendment Regulations introduced a range of temporary amendments to ten statutory instruments governing the children’s social care system.
Held: The Secretary of State had been under an obligation to consult several interested parties and bodies. The amendments had substantial effects. He had failed to satisfy this requirement, but the regulations having now expired, a declaration only was sufficient.

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1577

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary Summary, Judiciary

Statutes:

Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Adoption, Children, Administrative

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.656304

B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Apr 2001

The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were affected, the rules allowed application for their admission to the proceedings, and leave could also be sought to disclose the results of the proceedings to named parties. Custody and contact disputes were prime examples of situations where exclusion of the press and public could be justified to protect the interests of the child and parties to the case: ‘such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment . . to pronounce the judgment in public would, to a large extent, frustrate these aims.’ Parties were expected to be candid and open about events, and that would be threatened if proceedings were held in public.

Judges:

J-P Costa P, Loucaides, Kuris, Tulkens, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Greve and Mr K Traja JJ, and Dolle, Section Registrar

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001, 36337/97, 35974/97, (2002) 34 EHRR 529, [2001] 2 FLR 261, [2001] ECHR 295, [1999] ECHR 179, [2001] Fam Law 506, [2001] 2 FCR 221, 11 BHRC 667

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA 20-Jun-1996
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . .

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 . .
Appealed to – P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA 20-Jun-1996
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . .
Cited – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jan-2016
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to . .
Cited – Gallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions) FC 13-Jun-2022
H sought an order restricting reporting of the divorce financial remedy proceedings, or an anonymity order.
Held: The application was refused save as to identification of the children, and certain tax matters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Administrative

Leading Case

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.166087

In re D (A Child): CA 14 May 2012

Determination as between local authorities as to which to be designated local authority on care order

Judges:

Ward, Stanley Burnton, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 627, [2012] 3 WLR 1468, [2012] BLGR 981, [2013] Fam 34, [2012] 2 FCR 153, [2012] Fam Law 1082, [2012] WLR(D) 146, [2012] 4 All ER 78

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Local Government

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.457676

R and Others (Minors), Regina (on The Application of) v The Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service: CA 29 Jun 2012

Duty of CAFCASS to make provision for children to be represented in care proceedings

Judges:

Lord Judge CJ, Richards, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 853, [2012] 2 FCR 609, [2012] 2 FLR 1432, [2012] WLR(D) 189, [2013] 1 WLR 163, [2012] Fam Law 1319,

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.461770

Re L (A Child): CA 28 Sep 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal against order transferring residence of the only child for the family from mother to father.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1480

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201346

In re H (Children) ) (Residence Order: Condition): CA 30 Jul 2001

Thorpe LJ said: ‘What is the rationalisation for a different test to be applied to an application to relocate to Belfast, as opposed to, say, an application to relocate from Gloucester to Dublin? All that the court can do is to remember that in each and every case the decision must rest on the paramount principle of child welfare.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Astill JLJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1338, [2001] 2 FLR 1277, [2001] Fam Law 870, [2001] 2 FLR 77, [2001] 3 FCR 182

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: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201245

In re S (A Child) (Residence Order: Condition): CA 11 May 2001

Thorpe and Clarke LJJ both observed that it was desirable to have some consistency between the principles to be applied as between applications for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction and for removals within the jurisdiction of the court.

Judges:

Thorpe, Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 847, [2001] 3 FCR 154

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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201083

Kadri, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council and Another: CA 7 Nov 2012

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR,Sullivan, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2013] 1 WLR 1755, [2012] EWCA Civ 1432, [2013] 1 All ER 945, [2012] WLR(D) 316, [2013] HLR 4, (2012) 15 CCL Rep 741, [2013] 1 FCR 153

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.465607

Re B; X Council v B and others: FD 6 Jul 2007

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1622 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Durham County Council v D and others FD 11-Jun-2008
Having given his judgment in private in a very complex matter, Munby J went out of his way to publicise his admiration for the work of the professionals involved. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.260014

Re H: CA 2002

Thorpe LJ said: ‘in weighing the rival claims of the biological parent over the psychological parent, the court must arrive at its choice on the application of the welfare test, the paramountcy test contained in s 1, having particular regard to the welfare checklist contained in s 1(3)’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[2002] 3 FCR 277

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.240128

In re H (Children): CA 2003

The maternal grandmother sought permission to intervene in care proceedings to put herself forward as the carer of her young grandchild. The local authority and the guardian objected to the intervention. The judge had refused it. The grandmother appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed. When considering such an application for leave to make an application for a residence order, the statutory checklist must be given its proper respect. It was not appropriate to substitute the test ‘has the applicant satisfied the court that he or she has a good arguable case’ for the test set out by Parliament in s. 10(9) of the 1989 Act. Thorpe LJ: ‘The statutory language is transparent. Nowhere does it import any obligation on the judge to carry out independently a review of future prospects.’ and ‘I would observe that all that is said directly in relation to the discharge of the judicial task under s. 34(3) and not directly in relation to the discharge of the judicial task under s. 10(9). In my experience, trial judges have interpreted the decision in Re M (Care: Contact: Grandmother’s Application for Leave) as requiring them, in the determination of applications under s. 10(9) to apply the three-fold test formulated by Ward LJ which has the laudable purpose of excluding from the litigation exercise applications which are plainly hopeless.
I am particularly anxious at the development of a practice that seems to substitute the test, ‘has the applicant satisfied the court that he or she has a good arguable case’ for the test that Parliament applied in s. 10(9). That anxiety is heightened in modern times where applicants under s. 10(9) manifestly enjoy Art 6 rights to a fair trial and, in the nature of things, are also likely to enjoy Art 8 rights.’
and ‘The whole purpose of the decision in Re J was to draw the attention of trial judges to the need to adopt a careful review of the section 10(9) criteria and not to replace those tests simply with a broad evaluation of the applicant’s future prospects of success.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Ferris J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 369

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 10(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re R (a Child) (Adoption: Contact) CA 18-Aug-2005
The child was placed for adoption. In the period before adoption, contact with her family continued. The prospective adopters said that this was unsettling.
Held: It would be unusual to make an order for contact against the wishes of the . .
Cited – In re R (A Child) CA 18-Aug-2005
An application was made for continued contact after a proposed adoption. The mother was young and had herself lost her family and taken into care when very young.
Held: Her request for permission to appeal failed. Wall LJ ‘I am reasonably . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.230064

Re I and E (Residential Assessment Order): CA 1997

Gilliat C, the child was the subject of proceedings. There were five other children, the authority had concerns about her abilities, and the father was a Schedule 1 sex offender. Two children exhibited sexualised and abusive behaviour at school. The court had previously ordered removal of the boys for assessment. Further orders were made for the assessment of C. Though that failed, the Judge refused an order to stop the Authority removing C to make an assessment for the final hearing. The mother appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The court would not interfere in the local authority’s revised interim care plan to remove C for further assessment. Assessment in the home was not a realistic or viable option.

Citations:

Unreported 1997

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Local Government

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.228013

Regina on the Application of Keating v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: QBD 22 Jul 2004

Refusal of magistrates to make order prohibiting disclosure of child’s name on application for anti-social behaviour order.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1933 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200314

Re C (Abduction: Settlement): FD 28 May 2004

The mother had unlawfully and against the father’s wishes, brought the child to the UK from the US. She hid their identity and whereabouts for a year, and resisted the father’s request for his return to the US, saying the child was settled here.
Held: The court rejected the orthodoxy that the phrase ‘the child is now settled in its new environment’ imports far more than mere ostensible physical settlement, and also that a judicial finding of settlement only opens the gate to the exercise of a judicial discretion to order or refuse the child’s return to the jurisdiction from which it had been abducted.
A finding that the child was settled precluded the judge from ordering a return. where the second paragraph of article 12 applies, a finding that the children are now settled in their new environment takes the case outside the Hague Convention altogether.

Judges:

Singer J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1245 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 127

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cannon v Cannon CA 19-Oct-2004
The mother had brought the child to the UK wrongfully. She had hidden their identity for more than a year. Upon discovering her, the father came to England and began proceedings for the child’s return to the US.
Held: Because the child’s . .
Cited – Re M and another (Children) (Abduction; Rights of Custody) HL 5-Dec-2007
Three children had been brought from Zimbabwe by their mother against the wishes of the father and in breach of his rights there. The mother appealed an order for their return.
Held: The mother’s appeal was allowed. The House had to consider . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200010

Taylor (A Child Proceeding By his Mother and Litigation Friend C M Taylor) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: CA 6 Jul 2004

The Chief Constable appealed aganst a finding that his officers had wrongfully arrested and imprisoned the claimant. The claimant was 10 years old when arrested, and complained that the officers had not properly advised him of the nature and purpose of the arrest.
Held: ‘The question is thus whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, the person arrested was told in simple, non-technical language that he could understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest.’ The cases are fact sensitive. The claimant was told he was being arrested for a violent disorder on an identified previous occasion. To ask the officer to go further would invite even more doubt. As to the period of detention, the judge was entitled to find on the evidence that the delay in interview had been unreasonable.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Sedley Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 858, Times 13-Jul-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 503, [2004] 1 WLR 3155

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Cited – Murphy v Oxford CA 15-Feb-1985
. .
Cited – Abbassy v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 28-Jul-1989
The court considered what information had to be given to a suspect on his arrest.
Held: The question whether or not the information given is adequate has to be assessed objectively having regard to the information which is reasonably available . .
Cited – Mercer v Chief Constable of Lancashire CA 1991
When justifying a detention, the Chief Constable must prove it ‘was lawful minute by minute and hour by hour’. . .
Cited – Fox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-1990
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .
Cited – Wilding v Chief Constable of Lancashire CA 22-May-1995
The court considered a claim by a woman for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention by police officers who had reasonably suspected her of burglary of the house of her former partner. In interview by the police, she denied the offence and made . .
Cited – Woods v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 26-May-1995
The court in considering the period of detention of the claimant, asked itself whether the circumstances were such that the decision of the custody sergeant was unreasonable in the sense that no custody sergeant, applying common sense to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198601

Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council,: Admn 26 May 2004

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198219

SMD v LMD: FD 14 Feb 2014

By his application the father sought an order for contact with A. The Respondent is her mother and primary carer, LMD.

Judges:

Keehan J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 302 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.523355

D v Hereford and Worcester County Council: FD 1991

The court considered an application for an order for parental rights under the 1967 Act.
Held: Ward J said: ‘Can this (father) show that he is the father of the child, not in the biological sense but in the sense that he has established or is likely to establish such a real family tie with the [child] that he should now be accorded the corresponding legal tie? It would be easier to ask under the Children Act 1989, but the essence is the same: ‘has he behaved, or will he behave, with parental responsibility for this child?’ These real links are not established simply on proof of, or acknowledgement of, paternity.’

Judges:

Ward J

Citations:

[1991] Fam 14

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1967 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re D (A Child) CA 26-Mar-2014
F appealed against the removal of his parental responsibility for his son. M and F were not married, but F had been named on the birth certificate. He had later been convicted of sexual assaults against two daughters of M by an earlier relationship. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.523341

Birmingham City Council v RL and Others: FD 14 Feb 2011

Application made on behalf of the Children’s Guardian inviting the Judge to recuse himself from further hearing this matter which concerns the welfare of three children.
Held: Refused -criticism of attempts by the parties to bypass the court’s decisions.

Judges:

Robert Owen QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1299 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.440079

R and Another v A: FD 11 May 2011

The applicants wished to withdraw the proceedings: the respondent wanted them to be dismissed. The respondent also said that the applicants should be ordered to pay his costs. The applicants said there should be no order as to costs.

Judges:

Wall P

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1158 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.439741

F v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 1991

The local authority took children into care, reassuring the parents that they would be returned. They were not.
Held: There was no valid claim for damages for the distress arising from the loss of the company of a child. There was no cause of action in negligence. The authority was working within a statutory framework.
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘If there should be deliberate injury to a parent with reference to care or custody of her child, whether by deceit or by misfeasance in public office, it would not follow that, because there is no cause of action in negligence for loss of parental right, damages could not be recovered for such deliberate injury and its consequences.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1991] Fam 69, [1991] 2 WLR 1132

Statutes:

Children Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Hamilton Jones v David and Snape (a Firm) ChD 19-Dec-2003
The claimant was represented by the respondent firm of solicitors in an action for custody of her children. Through their negligence the children had been removed from the country. She sought damages for the distress of losing her children.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Damages

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.193439

In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal): FD 24 Apr 2002

The mother had applied here for asylum. Her application had been refused but was subject to appeal. The father in India sought the return of the children on the basis that they had been removed from a Convention country which was their habitual residence, and against his will as their father. The mother applied for a stay pending the result of her appeal.
Held: The children should be returned. It was in their interests that this matter should be decided in their own country. There was no more than an superficial conflict between the 1999 Act, and the obligations under the Convention. The 1999 Act prevented removals under the immigration system, not orders giving effect to obligations under other conventions.

Judges:

Mr Justice Bennett

Citations:

Times 09-May-2002, Gazette 30-May-2002

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 15, Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal) CA 28-May-2002
The appellant was the mother of a child, who was claiming asylum. The father sought the return of the child to India, claiming he had been abducted by the mother. She said that whilst her claim for asylum was extant, the court must not allow her or . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal) CA 28-May-2002
The appellant was the mother of a child, who was claiming asylum. The father sought the return of the child to India, claiming he had been abducted by the mother. She said that whilst her claim for asylum was extant, the court must not allow her or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.170296

A Local Authority v A and D: FD 5 Dec 2001

A five week old baby had been brought into hospital with cranial pressure. At first signs of injury were not seen. It was concluded that the child may have been shaken, and the child protection procedures began. No criminal proceedings were to take place, and no interim care order had been necessary. The local authority asserted that the s31 threshold had been reached, to allow intervention. The court had to make a finding as to whether the child had been shaken. An order might be made even though it was not possible to say which of two carers was responsible for any violence. The presence of subdural haematomas in a young child or baby has become a serious indicator of non-accidental injury among clinicians dealing with young children, in the absence of an acceptable explanation for the injury. Subdural haematomas indicate a shaking injury and that the shaking must have been forceful to cause the tearing or shearing injury to the membranes in the space between the dura and the brain. Nevertheless, it was highly desirable for some research to be undertaken specifically in the field of injuries to young babies of three months or under

Judges:

The President

Citations:

Unreported, 5 December 2001

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A HL 16-Mar-2000
A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder’s own child B.
Held: Even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.169847

Regina, ex parte O v The London Borough of Haringey, The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 May 2004

The court considered the duties of local authorities to support infirm asylum seekers with children.
Held: The authority had an obligation to support the adult, but the responsibility for the children fell on the National Asylum Support Service.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix, LCJ, Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 535, Times 27-May-2004, [2004] 2 FNR 476

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .

Cited by:

Cited – City of Westminster v Boraliu CA 2-Nov-2007
The Council had taken leases of properties from a Housing Association to provide accomodation to the homeless, satisfying its statutory duties. The tenant B was said to be a non-secure tenant, but the tenancy agreement did not reflect the terms of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Children

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196626

Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines): CA 1999

Citations:

[1999] 2 FLR 573

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 91(14)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A Father (Mr A) v A Mother (Mrs A); Their Two Children (B And C) FD 4-Feb-2004
After a divorce, the father sought a joint residence order for the two young children. The mother alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour by the father. The court found this allegation clearly untrue. The dispute was bitter and protracted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195887

Re O and N (Care: preliminary hearing): CA 2002

Care proceedings were commenced for one child after the death of a sibling, but without evidence as to which carer was responsible.
Held: It had not been established upon a balance of probabilities that any one or more of the injuries were caused by either the mother or father. The mother must be treated as if she did not cause L to suffer significant harm within the meaning of s 31(2) of the Act. Moreover she is to be treated as if she has not caused L to suffer any physical harm or caused L or C to be at risk of suffering physical harm from her within the meaning of s 1(3)(e) of the Act.

Judges:

Ward LJ and Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2002] 2 FLR 1167, [2002] EWCA Civ 1271

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.180419

Re B (Non-accidental injury: compelling medical evidence): CA 2002

A child had died. Care proceedings were begun for the elder child. It was not clear just who had been responsible for the death.
Held: There were two questions. First, who perpetrated the injuries recorded by the experts? The answer to that can only be, ‘either the mother or KR’. The court is unable to determine to the requisite standard which. Secondly, who failed to protect K from these injuries? There was no doubt that the mother failed to protect her child. KR is not involved in any way in the disposal proceedings which will follow. He is the more probable perpetrator in relation to most of these injuries. But the important factor that the judge must bring into the foundation for the disposal hearing is that he cannot disregard the risk that the mother presents as a primary carer for either Y or a future child. The judge when he comes to the disposal hearing will have to consider the attraction of rehabilitation against the question mark which attaches to the mother, at least during that period when she was in cohabitation with KR.

Judges:

Thorpe, Rix and Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 902, [2002] 2 FLR 599

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited – In re A (a Child) (Care proceedings: Non-accidental injury) CA 1-Jul-2003
The 11 year old child had been subject to non-accidental injury. The perpetrator could not be identified form among those who had care of him. The Family Court had held the first part of a split trial. The judge had been unable to exclude the . .
Cited – North Yorkshire County Council v SA and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.180418

In re J (a child) (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights, Human Rights): CA 2 Apr 2004

The mother resisted an order requiring her to return to Saudi Arabia her child, saying that his human rights would be breached in Saudi.
Held: The court could apply the convention only as regards actions which would take place in a convention country. Speed was essential in dealing with international child abduction cases. Whilst there could be no criticism of the judge’s ‘impeccable direction’ on the applicable legal principles, the court allowed the father’s appeal on the ground that the judge had ‘elevated this specific anxiety above a level that the evidence justified.’ Accordingly it should not have had such a decisive effect in what had earlier been described as ‘an otherwise balanced judgment.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Gage J

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 417, Times 14-Apr-2004, [2004] 2 FLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 8, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195742

In re V (a Child) (Care proceedings: Human Rights Claims): CA 4 Feb 2004

In a hearing where the threshold standard was at issue, a party challenged the compliance with Human Rights law of the 1989 Act. The court adjourned the case for transfer to the High Court.
Held: The correct court to hear such suggestions was the court seized of the case, and it should not be transferred. A transfer must bring additional delay. The court had to balance the need to respect family life and the rights of the child. The result had to be proportionate and best in the interests of the child.

Judges:

Tuckey, Ward LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 54, [2004] 1 WLR 1433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Endorsed – In re L (Care proceedings: Human Rights Claims) 2003
The court set out appropriate procedures designed to human rights claims, even properly brought, from de-railing care proceedings. . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re V (a Child) (Care: pre-birth actions) CA 12-Oct-2004
Immediately after a child was born, the social worker began proceedings for it to be taken into care. The judge severely criticised the actions of the social worker before the birth. The local authority now appealed against an order at the . .
Cited – Cheshire County Council and others v DS (Father) and others CA 15-Mar-2007
The court granted an appeal in care proceedings, but examined the relationship between the court and local authorities. There had been a late change in the proposed care plan and an application by grandparents to be made party. Some in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194050

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 found that this service had become therapeutic rather than for assessment, and said it had no standing to order and extension. The authority amended its care plan for the child to live with the grandparents.
Held: The correct approach was rather as in In re C, not In re M. ‘The essential question should always be, can what is sought be broadly classified as an assessment to enable the court to obtain the information necessary for its own decision?’ The judge did have standing to extend the assessment. It was still directed to providing the court with material on which it might make a decision. In this case the psychotherapeutic involvement was an essential part of the assessment. The authority had not substantiated its claims as to lack of funding, and had given the family no opportunity to challenge its decision.

Judges:

Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President, Thorpe, Latham LJJ

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-2004, Gazette 04-Mar-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 24, [2004] 1 FLR 876

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6), Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – 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 – 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 . .
Doubted – 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 by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond Upon Thames HL 4-Feb-2009
The father had been awarded shared residence for three children. He asked the local authority to provide appropriate housing.
Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded.
‘When any family court decides with whom the children of separated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194062

Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar: CA 11 Feb 2004

The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the tariff.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. Even though the court fixed the tariff. These applicants fell under transitional arrangements. The respondent had to keep the tariffs under review to allow for the circumstances and welfare of the prisoners as required. It was normally necessary for a criminal sentence to be determined at a public hearing, though exceptional circumstances might show that was unnecessary.

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Mantell, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 99, Times 18-Feb-2004, Gazette 11-Mar-2004, [2004] QB 1341

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 82A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Smith v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2003
The case asked what duty the respondent had, in respect of youths sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure before 30th November 2000, to review their continued detention at regular intervals. A statement said that once a tarriff had . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Appeal from – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Appeal from – 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.

Criminal Sentencing, Children, Prisons

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193777

Kosmopoulou v Greece: ECHR 5 Feb 2004

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
‘the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, even if the relationship between the parents has broken down, and domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8 of the Convention.’ and ‘In examining whether the non-enforcement of the access arrangements amounted to a lack of respect for the applicant’s family life the Court must strike a balance between the various interests involved, namely the interests of the applicant’s daughter, those of the applicant herself and the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law.’

Citations:

60457/00, [2004] 1 FCR 427, [2004] ECHR 58

Links:

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

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193564