Category: Children

Re R (Children: Temporary Leave To Remove From Jurisdiction): FD 3 Mar 2014

HHJ Clifford Bellamy
[2014] EWHC 643 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Q v Q FD 21-May-2014
The father sought contact with his child. It was resisted by the mother. He was a convicted sex offender with offences against young male children. Expert evidence had been obtained, and he wished to challenge it. However, legal aid had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522463

Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 21 Nov 2013

The applicant sought housing as a homeless person.
Held: Moses LJ said: ‘The statutory questions are clear; was the action or omission in question deliberate? The answer to that question cannot differ [according to] whether the local authority takes into account the duty under section 11 of the Children’s [sic] Act or not.’

Moses, Beatson, Briggs LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1865
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 1931( 193(2), Children Act 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522304

Y v Z: FD 28 Feb 2014

The mother applied to court for permission to disclose to the police the fact, as alleged, that the Father had lied in documents filed at court.
Bodey J said that: ‘it is no part of the functions of the Courts to act as investigators, or otherwise, on behalf of prosecuting authorities . . or other public bodies.’

Bodey J
[2014] EWHC 650 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522287

Re S (Children): CA 28 Feb 2014

F appealed against a placement order in respect of his daughter. The court was asked whether the judgment had been based upon proper evidence and reasoned sufficiently.
Held: The appeal was allowed, an interim care order is substituted in place of the full care order made and the case is remitted to HHJ Karp for further case management directions and, ultimately re-hearing.
It was ordered that the local authority should pay the father’s legal costs because it had resisted the appeal, and it was necessary not to deter a parent from challenging decisions which impact on the most crucial of human relationships. The principle in In re T was not applicable to appeals.

Macur DBE, Sharp DBE JJ, Sir Robin Jacob
[2014] EWCA Civ 135, [2015] 1 FLR 130
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Re S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521937

In re Q: FD 6 May 2020

Appeal from a case management decision made in the course of long-running private law proceedings concerning the welfare of a girl, Q, who is now aged 6 .5 years.

Sir Andrew McFarlane P
[2020] EWHC 1109 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.655250

Re S (Placement Order: Revocation): CA 7 Oct 2008

The circuit judge had been wrong to hold that a child placed with foster parents who were actively considering whether to apply to adopt him had been placed with them for adoption. Thorpe LJ said clearly that a child could not be said to be placed with the foster carers for adoption until the local authority had approved the match of the child with them and had resolved to leave him with them in their fresh capacity as prospective adopters.

Thorpe LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1333, [2009] 1 FLR 503, [2009] PTSR CS9, [2009] Fam Law 100
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Coventry City Council v PGO and Others CA 22-Jun-2011
The children had been placed with short term fosterers. On adopters being found, the fosterers themselves applied to adopt the children. The court was asked whether a county court judge had power to injunct the authority not to remove the children . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.341650

Re M (A Child): CA 21 Feb 2014

The court dealt with points of principle relating to how the courts in England and Wales determine family cases that involve nationals of other countries, in particular Member States of the European Union and for that reason, permission to appeal was granted by Mostyn J in accordance with CPR 52.3(6) (b).
Sir James Munby P said: ‘The language of article 15 is clear and simple. It requires no gloss.’ and ‘As Lady Hale observed in Re I, para 36, . . the task for the judge under article 15, ‘will not depend upon a profound investigation of the child’s situation and upbringing but upon the sort of considerations which come into play when deciding upon the most appropriate forum’.’
He continued: ‘I wish to emphasise that the question of whether the other court will have available to it the full list of options available to the English court – for example, the ability to order a non-consensual adoption – is simply not relevant to either the second or the third question. As Ryder LJ has explained, by reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in In re I (A Child) (Contact Application: Jurisdiction) [2009] UKSC 10; [2010] 1 AC 319 and of this court in In re T (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Request to Assume Jurisdiction) [2013] EWCA Civ 895, [2014] Fam 130, the question asked by article 15 is whether it is in the child’s best interests for the case to be determined in another jurisdiction, and that is quite different from the substantive question in the proceedings, ‘what outcome to these proceedings will be in the best interests of the child?’.’

Sir James Munby P, Lewison, Ryder LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 152, [2014] WLR(D) 92, [2014] 2 FLR 1372, [2014] Fam Law 966, [2014] 2 FCR 585
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Emphasised – Re N (Children : Adoption: Jurisdiction) CA 2-Nov-2015
Appeal against care and placement order proceedings in relation to two Hungarian children, The orders were for the transfer of the case to Hungary.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. As to Article 15, the Court considered: What are the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, European

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521497

Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Lally: QBD 26 Oct 2000

Tight restrictions had been placed on the circumstances under which children might visit prisoners in high security hospitals who were seen to be a risk to them having been convicted of murder or similar or who were schedule 1 offenders. The restrictions were valid, since they always allowed visits where a court had ordered contact, and there was no clear line to be drawn between different classes of convicted murderers. Contact was to be assessed in accordance with the child’s best interests, and breaks in contact with remoter family members such as nephews and nieces, need not be considered interference with family life.

Times 26-Oct-2000
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales

Children, Human Rights, Family

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.85486

In re B (a Child); B v W: CA 21 Jan 2014

F’s adjourned applications for permission to appeal the orders of HHJ Roddy made on 3 June 2013 and 28 October 2013; the former allowing the mother’s appeal from the order of the Tameside Family Proceedings Court, the latter her own order on a hearing de novo of the evidence and which consequently granted the mother permission to re-locate with their child E to London from Manchester.

Moore-Bick, Kitchin, Macur DBE LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 19
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520004

In re LC (Children): SC 15 Jan 2014

The test for determining whether a child was habitually resident in a place is whether there was some degree of integration by her (or him) in a social and family environment there, may the court, in making that determination in relation to an adolescent child who has resided, particularly if only for a short time, in a place under the care of one of her parents, have regard to her own state of mind during her period of residence there in relation to the nature and quality of that residence? In my view this is the principal question raised by these appeals.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 1, [2014] Fam Law 408, [2014] 1 All ER 1181
Bailii
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re B (A Child) SC 3-Feb-2016
Habitual Residence of Child not lost
(Orse In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)) The Court considered the notion of habitual residence. The British girl with same sex parents had been taken to Pakistan, and her mother here sought her return. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519756

Kinderis v Kineriene: FD 18 Dec 2013

This is a public judgment to highlight a now chronic problem with regard to the provision of legal aid in cases of alleged international child abduction by a parent to this country. These are some of the most grave cases which come before our family courts. They may, and usually do, involve very serious issues indeed for both parents and for the child or children concerned.

Holman J
[2013] EWHC 4139 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Aid, Children, International

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519685

Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (A Child (No 1): FD 23 Sep 2021

Otherwise: Nottinghamshire County Council -v- LH and others

[2021] EWHC 2584 (Fam)
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (A Child (No2) FD 28-Sep-2021
Following refusal to allow detention beyond interim of child in acute psychiatric admission unit for adolescents, when no such acute condition suffered, but no other appropriate alternate accommodation available at all. Granted residence in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.668305

TN (Afghanistan) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Dec 2013

The applicants had arrived in the UK as minors fleeing Afghanistan. They now challenged grant of a discretionary leave to remain limited to expire withiin one year.

Maurice Kay VP, Beatson, Briggs LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1609, [2013] WLR(D) 483, [2014] INLR 542, [2014] 1 WLR 2095, [2014] 2 CMLR 31
Bailii, WLRD
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83, Directive 2003/9/EC
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – TN v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Dec-2011
‘The claimant, an unaccompanied child, challenges the Secretary of State’s decision of 12 November 2010 refusing his claim for asylum and for humanitarian protection and granting him discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a shorter . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518937

X v Latvia: ECHR 26 Nov 2013

ECHR Grand Chamber – Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Failure to conduct detailed examination of all relevant points when deciding whether to return a child pursuant to Hague Convention: violation
Facts – The applicant lived in Australia and in 2005 gave birth to a daughter while living with her partner T. The child’s birth certificate did not state the father’s name and no paternity test was ever carried out. In 2008 the applicant left Australia with her daughter and returned to her native Latvia. T. then filed a claim with the Australian courts seeking to establish his parental rights in respect of the child, alleging that the applicant had taken the child without his consent when leaving Australia, contrary to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Australian courts decided that T. and the applicant had joint custody of the child and that the case would be further reviewed once the child was returned to Australia. When the competent Latvian authorities received notification from the Australian authorities, they heard representations from the applicant, who contested the applicability of the Hague Convention on the ground that she had been the child’s sole guardian. The Latvian courts granted T.’s request, concluding that it was not for them to challenge the conclusions reached by the Australian authorities concerning his parental responsibility. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to return the child to Australia within six weeks. In March 2009 T. met the applicant, took the child and returned with her to Australia. Ultimately, the Australian courts ruled that T. was the sole guardian and that the applicant was only allowed to visit the child under the supervision of social services and was not allowed to speak to her in Latvian.
In a judgment of 13 December 2011 (see Information Note 147), a Chamber of the Court concluded, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, considering that the failure to conduct an in-depth examination of all relevant factors when the Latvian courts decided that the applicant was to return her daughter in application of the Hague Convention had rendered that interference disproportionate.
Law – Article 8: The Court was called on to examine whether the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8, resulting from the decisions of the national courts, had been ‘necessary in a democratic society’. To that end, the Court reiterated that, in determining whether the decisions of the national courts had struck the fair balance that must exist between the competing interests at stake – those of the child, of the two parents, and of public order – within the margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters, the best interests of the child had to be of primary consideration. In that connection, in order to achieve a harmonious interpretation of the European Convention and the Hague Convention, the factors capable of constituting an exception to the child’s immediate return in application of Articles 12, 13 and 20 of the said Convention had, first of all, genuinely to be taken into account by the requested court, which had to issue a decision that was sufficiently reasoned on this point, and then to be evaluated in the light of Article 8 of the European Convention. It followed that Article 8 of the Convention imposed on the domestic authorities a procedural obligation, requiring that, when assessing an application for a child’s return, the courts had to consider arguable allegations of a ‘grave risk’ for the child in the event of return and make a ruling giving specific reasons. As to the exact nature of the ‘grave risk’, the exception provided for in Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention concerned only the situations which go beyond what a child could reasonably bear.
In the present case, the Court noted that, before the Latvian courts, the applicant had adduced several factors to establish that the child’s return to Australia would entail a ‘grave risk’ for her child; she had also submitted that T. had criminal convictions and referred to instances of ill-treatment by him. In particular, in her appeal pleadings, the applicant had submitted a psychologist’s certificate concluding that there existed a risk of trauma for the child in the event of immediate separation from her mother. Although it was for the national courts to verify the existence of a ‘grave risk’ for the child, and the psychological report was directly linked to the best interests of the child, the regional court had refused to examine the conclusions of that report in the light of the provisions of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. At the same time, the national courts had also failed to deal with the issue of whether it was possible for the mother to follow her daughter to Australia and to maintain contact with her. As the national courts had failed to carry out an effective examination of the applicant’s allegations, the decision-making process under domestic law did not satisfy the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 of the Convention, and the applicant had therefore suffered a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.
Conclusion: violation (nine votes to eight).
Article 41: no claim for damages submitted.
(See also Maumousseau and Washington v. France, 39388/05, 6 December 2007, Information Note 103, and Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], 41615/07, 6 July 2010, Information Note 132)

27853/09 – Grand Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 1172, 27853/09 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 152
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8-1
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – In Re B (A Minor)(Child Abduction: Consent) CA 9-May-1994
A six year old boy, had lived in Western Australia all his life. Shortly prior to his removal from Australia, the mother had left Australia to live in Wales. The maternal grandmother asked the father for permission to take the child to Wales to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518451

In re B (A Child): CA 13 Nov 2013

The mother had a long term history of severe mental health. The local authority took steps to begin care proceedings so that the child might be taken from her at birth. Hearing of these plans, she moved first to a different area, and then to Sweden. She and the child returned to visit the maternal grandmother, and then when the authority began its steps, she resisted saying that since they were now ordinarily resident in Sweden, the court had no jurisdiction. She now appealed against rejection of that claim.
Held: The matter was governed by Brussells II.

McFarlane, Gloster, Floyd LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1434, [2014] 2 WLR 1384, [2013] WLR(D) 461
Bailii, WLRD
European Council regulation No. 2201/2003
England and Wales

Children, Health

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517647

London Borough of Southwark v A Family: FD 18 May 2020

S then aged 10, died in her bedroom at the family home. This case is concerned with the question as to whether the circumstances of her death pose a risk to her younger siblings so as to require the intervention of the state.

Sir Mark Hedley
[2020] EWHC 3117 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.656325

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Fixsler and Others: FD 28 May 2021

Application for declaration as to child’s best interests. Hospital wanting to provide only palliative care – family wanting life support

[2021] EWHC 1426 (Fam), [2021] WLR(D) 339, [2021] 4 WLR 95
Bailii, Judiciary, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Fixsler and Another v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 9-Jul-2021
Whether to withdraw life sustaining treatment for a little girl with catastrophic brain injuries. . .
See Also – Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Fixsler and Others FD 6-Oct-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.663811

Fixsler and Another v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and Another: CA 9 Jul 2021

Whether to withdraw life sustaining treatment for a little girl with catastrophic brain injuries.

[2021] EWCA Civ 1018
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Fixsler and Others FD 28-May-2021
Application for declaration as to child’s best interests. Hospital wanting to provide only palliative care – family wanting life support . .

Cited by:
See Also – Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Fixsler and Others FD 6-Oct-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Children

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.664386

Re S (A Child): SC 25 Mar 2015

The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against care and placement orders made in a county court. The LA now appealed against an order for it to pay costs.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In the absence of some suggestion of bad or reprehensible behaviour by the Local Authority, the standard rule as to the non availability of costs in such cases should be followed. There are differences between trials and appeals. ‘At first instance, ‘nobody knows what the judge is going to find’, whereas on appeal the factual findings are known. Not only that, the judge’s reasons are known. Both parties have an opportunity to ‘take stock’ and consider whether they should proceed to advance or resist an appeal and to negotiate on the basis of what they now know. So it may well be that conduct which was reasonable at first instance is no longer reasonable on appeal. But in my view that does not alter the principles to be applied: it merely alters the application of those principles to the circumstances of the case.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 20, [2015] WLR(D) 163, [2015] 2 All ER 778, [2015] 1 WLR 1631, [2015] 1 FCR 549, [2015] Fam Law 513, UKSC 2014/0101, [2015] 2 FLR 208
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – Re B-S (Children) CA 17-Sep-2013
The mother had been refused leave to oppose her child’s adoption. She now appealed.
Held: A court facing such an application faced two questions: Has there been a change in circumstances? If not, that is the end of the matter. If yes, then the . .
Appeal from – Re S (Children) CA 28-Feb-2014
F appealed against a placement order in respect of his daughter. The court was asked whether the judgment had been based upon proper evidence and reasoned sufficiently.
Held: The appeal was allowed, an interim care order is substituted in . .
Cited – Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) CA 1-Apr-1991
In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump . .
Cited – London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) 1994
In cases involving children costs awarded against one parent or another are exceptional since the court is anxious to avoid the situation where a parent may feel ‘punished’ by the other parent which will reduce co-operation between them. This will . .
Cited – Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board CA 21-Oct-1994
The standard practice of not awarding costs in children cases overrides the possibility of making a hardship order from Landlord. Costs orders are unusual in custody disputes and no order was to be made against the Legal Aid Board in favour of an . .
Cited – G v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .

Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.544727

SZ v Birmingham City Council and Others: FC 2 Mar 2021

Father’s application for contact with his children B, now aged 16 and S (known as K) aged 14. Both children are in the care of a local authority. B lives with the second respondent, the mother. K lives in a care home, but regularly visits his mother and sister.

Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWFC 15
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.661716

SS v MCP (No 2): FD 3 Nov 2021

Children – Custody rights – Jurisdiction – Allegation that mother wrongfully removing child born in England to India
As to an application for security for costs, ‘It is clear from the judgment of Moylan LJ in Re M that the burden of surmounting the substantive threshold falls on the applicant. He has to show that there are circumstances here which are sufficiently compelling to require or make it necessary that the court should exercise its protective jurisdiction. The burden is to demonstrate that a crisis has erupted and that in consequence the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, serious harm, of the type, as Sir James Munby P suggested, that would engage articles 2 or 3 (i.e. a threat to life or of inhuman or degrading treatment). In Re M (Wardship: Jurisdiction and Powers) [2015] EWHC 1433, the President stated that he did not need to consider whether the jurisdiction would be exercisable where the risk to the child is of harm falling short of harm of the type that would engage Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. In my judgment, if Moylan LJ’s substantive threshold is not to be robbed of meaningful content, the bar must be set at that level of harm. That level is not positioned at the ‘very extreme end of the spectrum’ (see Re M at [105]) but rather at a point which rightly reflects the criteria of caution, circumspection and necessity. It also gives effect to the key underlying principle that the jurisdiction is protective in nature to be exercised in a supporting, residual role (ibid at [107]).’

Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWHC 2898 (Fam), [2021] WLR(D) 558
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669926

In re C (Children) (Family Proceedings: Case Management): CA 12 Oct 2012

The court has a general power summarily to dismiss a meritless claim for security for costs in a family case.

Lord Justice Munby
[2013] 1 FLR 1089, [2012] EWCA Civ 1489
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669927

Re W (A Child) (A Child) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose): CA 16 Oct 2013

Sir James Munby discussed the lamentable failure by a local authority to comply with an order of the court: ‘That the parents and their representatives should have been put in this position is quite deplorable. It is, unhappily, symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated. It is something of which I complained almost thirteen years ago: see In re S (A Child) (Family Division: Without Notice Orders) [2001] 1 WLR 211, [2001] 1 FLR 308. Perhaps what I say as President will carry more weight than what I said when the junior puisne.
I refer to the slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious attitude which still far too frequently characterises the response to orders made by family courts. There is simply no excuse for this. Orders, including interlocutory orders, must be obeyed and complied with to the letter and on time. Too often they are not. They are not preferences, requests or mere indications; they are orders: see In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, [2014] 1 WLR 1611, para 74.
The law is clear. As Romer LJ said in Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285, 288, in a passage endorsed by the Privy Council in Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97, 101:
‘It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void.’
For present purposes that principle applies as much to orders by way of interlocutory case management directions as to any other species of order. The court is entitled to expect – and from now on family courts will demand – strict compliance with all such orders. Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence.
Let me spell it out. An order that something is to be done by 4 pm on Friday, is an order to do that thing by 4 pm on Friday, not by 4.21 pm on Friday let alone by 3.01 pm the following Monday or sometime later the following week. A person who finds himself unable to comply timeously with his obligations under an order should apply for an extension of time before the time for compliance has expired. It is simply not acceptable to put forward as an explanation for non-compliance with an order the burden of other work. If the time allowed for compliance with an order turns out to be inadequate the remedy is either to apply to the court for an extension of time or to pass the task to someone else who has available the time in which to do it.
Non-compliance with an order, any order, by anyone is bad enough. It is a particularly serious matter if the defaulter is a public body such as a local authority.’

Sir James Munby P, Goldring, Elias LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1177, [2013] WLR(D) 384, [2014] 1 FLR 1266, [2014] 1 WLR 1993
Bailii
Adoption and Children Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Isaacs v Robertson PC 13-Jun-1984
(St Vincent and The Grenadines) Where the point at issue before the Board was as to a point of procedure with no direct comparable provision in UK law, the Board of the Privy Council should be reluctant to depart from the interpretation set down by . .
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Family Division: Without Notice Orders) FD 2001
Munby J considered the the duty of full and frank disclosure which exists on those who seek to use a without notice procedure within Children proceedings. Generally, when granting ex parte injunctive relief in the Family Division, the court will . .

Cited by:
Cited – In re W (Children) FD 25-Jul-2014
. .
Cited – In re W (Children) FD 25-Jul-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516558

W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and Others: CA 11 Oct 2013

The mother, RW, had made serious but false allegations of sexual and physical abuse that she said had been perpetrated upon her by others. In care proceedings in the county court her child, W, was held to be at risk of significant emotional harm, and a care order made. His findings and decision were not accepted by either party.
Held: The court considered the evidential burden falling on a court facing such assessments.
Ryder LJ said: ‘Although it is conventional to speak of facts having to be proved on the balance of probabilities by the party who makes the allegation, proceedings under the 1989 Act are quasi-inquisitorial (quasi-inquisitorial in the classic sense that the court does not issue the process of its own motion). The judge has to decide whether sufficient facts exist to satisfy the threshold (the jurisdictional facts) whether or not the local authority or any other party agree. Furthermore, the basis upon which the threshold is satisfied is a matter for the judge, not the parties. To that end, if the judge directs that an issue be settled for determination, then absent an appeal, the issue will be tried whatever any party may think about that.

Sir Nicholas Wall P, McCombe, Ryder LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 382
Bailii, WLRD
Children Act 1989
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516438

F v M and Others: FD 18 Nov 2020

Appeal by a father against a decision in which the judge declined to order direct contact with the father’s three children, aged 10, 9 and 7. Orders were made for the children to live with their mother and have direct contact with their father by means of letters, cards, gifts and photos not more than four times a year.

[2020] EWHC 3532 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.657628