Category: Children

43 Ass Pl 15 10 El Dyer, 269; 2 Jan 1220

References: [1220] EngR 533, (1220-1623) Jenk 48, (1220) 145 ER 36 (B)
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:The King in Parliament grants to the prince, the dutchy of Cornwall, with the wards and marriages of his tenants by knight’s-service thereunto belonging : the King has A. his tenant within the said Dutchy, who holds of him (viz. the King), other lands elsewhere in capite; this tenant dies his heir within age, this A. also held other lands of the dutchy by knight-service : the prince shall not have the wardship of the heir of A. nor of the land in this case ; for A was of integer tenens of the dutchy ; and this is a special case of prerogative, that the King’s charters, without express mention, do not pass any thing, nor are of any effect in such case.

Last Update: 29-Jun-16
Ref: 461445

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

References: Times 15-May-2001, 36337/97, 35974/97, (2002) 34 EHRR 529, [2001] 2 FLR 261, [2001] ECHR 295, [1999] ECHR 179
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Ratio 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.
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 510, (1997) 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Kent County Council -v- The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD ([2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), Bailii, [2004] 2 FLR 142, [2004] EWHC Fam 411, [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 303)
    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 (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 510, (1997) 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765)
    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 ((2004) 2 FLR 823, Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 845, [2004] 3 All ER 875)
    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 ([2015] 1 AC 588, 2014 SC (UKSC) 151, 2014 SCLR 593, Bailii, [2014] UKSC 25, [2014] 2 All ER 1037, 2014 GWD 15-266, [2014] WLR(D) 196, [2014] 2 WLR 1243, [2014] EMLR 25, 2014 SLT 613, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0159, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17-May-16
Ref: 166087

X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent); FC 13 Feb 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 13
Links: Bailii
Coram: Theis J
Ratio The required Form PP was not on the clinic’s file. Theis J set out four issues which accordingly arose: (1) Did X sign the Form PP so that it complied with section 37(1) of the 2008 Act? (2) If X did, was the Form PP subsequently mislaid by the clinic? (3) Was the treatment ‘provided under a licence’ as required by section 37(1)? (4) If the Form PP form was not signed can the court ‘read down’ section 37(1) to enable the court to make the declaration of parentage sought? She summarised her conclusions as follows: ‘I have concluded, on the facts of this case, that it is more likely than not that X did sign the PP form on 26 October 2012, and it has subsequently been mislaid by the clinic. I have also concluded, in the circumstances of this case, the failure by the clinic to maintain records did not amount to a breach of the licence so as to invalidate it, so that the treatment was ‘provided under a licence’ as required by s. 37(1).’
Ratio Theis J summarised the statutory record requirements: ‘Section 12(1)(d) HFEA 1990 provides that one of the conditions of every licence granted is that ‘proper records shall be maintained in such form as the Authority may specify in directions’. Direction 0012 requires licensed centres to maintain for a period of 30 years certain specific records, including ‘all consent forms and any specific instructions relating to the use and/or disposal of gametes and embryos’ (paragraph 1(f)). Licence condition T47 provides ‘All records must be clear and readable, protected from unauthorised amendment and retained and readily retrieved in this condition throughout their specified retention period in compliance with the data protection legislation’. At paragraph 31.2 of the guidance it provides ‘A record is defined as ‘information created or received, and maintained as evidence by a centre or person, in meeting legal obligations or in transacting business. Records can be in any form or medium providing they are readily accessible, legible and indelible’.’
It is clear from the findings I have made about the clinic not keeping the PP form for X that the CRM is in breach of Direction 0012.’
Statutes: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – In the matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ; A and Others FD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam), [2016] 1 WLR 1325, (2015) 146 BMLR 123, [2015] 3 FCR 555, [2016] 1 All ER 273, [2015] WLR(D) 387, [2015] Fam Law 1333, WLRD)
    The court was asked: ‘who, in law, is or are the parent(s) of a child born as a result of treatment carried out under this legislation’
    Held: The court pointed again to the failures to keep proper records within several fertility clinics. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17-May-16
Ref: 542927

Thomas v Gwynne; Thomas v Thomas; 17 Feb 1846

References: [1846] EngR 424 (A), (1845-1846) 9 Beav 275
Links: Commonlii
An infant devisee had been ordered to convey real estate sold for payment of the testator’s debts. He made default, and was not amenable to process. The Court, under the 1 W 4 c 60 s 8, directed a person to convey in his place.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Thomas -v- Gwynne; Thomas -v- Thomas ([1845] EngR 1096 (A), Commonlii, (1845) 8 Beav 312)
    Process by attachment to compel an infant to convey estates sold in a creditor’s suit. It is a contenpt to interfere and prevent an infant obeying the the order of the court to convey. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12-Jan-16 Ref: 302319

W v W (Child of the Family); 3 Nov 1984

References: [1984] FLR 796, Times 03-Nov-1984
Coram: Hollings J
M sought to establish that the defendant was the father of her child. Her complaint being out of time, she had to rely upon section 2(1)(b) to establish responsibility. The putative father had not given her money for maintenance but had contributed to the cost of a pram, and had given trousers and a jumper on his first birthday.
Held: The contributions were sufficient under the section to allow the court to find him to be the father.
Statutes: Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957
Last Update: 11-Dec-15 Ref: 556475

Re C (A Child); FC 29 Sep 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 79
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
There had been care proceedings as to C. The mother was treated by a psychiatrist, X, and an associate Y. They also prepared expert reports. M formally complained about X, and the charges having been dismissed, the doctors now sought disclosure of further medical recods from the care proceedings. His medical reputation had been severely damaged by reporting of the complaints.
This case cites:

  • Cited – Tournier -v- National Provincial & Union Bank of England CA ([1924] 1 KB 461, [1923] All ER Rep 550, 130 LT 682)
    The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute . .
  • Cited – W -v- Egdell CA (Bailii, [1989] EWCA Civ 13, [1990] Ch 359)
    Bingham LJ said: ‘It has never been doubted that the circumstances here were such as to impose on Dr Egdell a duty of confidence owed to W. He could not lawfully sell the contents of his report to a newspaper . . Nor could he, without a breach of . .

Last Update: 07-Oct-15 Ref: 552792

London Borough of Barnet v X and Another; FC 18 Apr 2006

References: [2006] 2 FLR 998, [2006] EWCC 1 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Munby J
Barnet County Court – Munby J considered the publication of children proceedings: ‘ In my view the public generally, and not just the professional readers of law reports or similar publications, have a legitimate – indeed a compelling – interest in knowing how the family courts exercise their care jurisdiction. Moreover, if leave is confined in practice to those cases which are, for some reason, thought to be worthy of reporting in a law report, the sample of cases which will ever come to public attention is not merely very small but also very unrepresentative.
My own view, and I make no bones about this, is that, subject of course to appropriate anonymisation, the presumption ought to be that leave should be given to publish any judgment in any care case, irrespective of whether the judgment has any particular interest for law reporters, lawyers or other professionals. It should not be necessary to show that there is some particular reason to justify why leave should be given in the particular case, let alone any need to justify leave on the basis that the judgment deals with some supposedly interesting point of law, practice or principle. For my own part, I should have thought that the proper approach ought to be the other way round. It is not so much for those who seek leave to publish an anonymised judgment to justify their request; surely it is for those who resist such leave to demonstrate some good reason why the judgment should not be published even in a suitably anonymised form.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL (House of Lords, [2004] UKHL 47, Bailii, Times 29-Oct-04, [2005] 1 FLR 591, [2005] 1 AC 593, 17 BHRC 646, [2004] 4 All ER 683, [2005] Crim LR 310, [2004] 3 FCR 407, [2005] HRLR 5, [2004] 3 WLR 1129, [2005] EMLR 11, [2005] UKHRR 129, [2005] EMLR 2)
    The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – H -v- A (No2) FD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 2630 (Fam))
    The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
    Held: The court identified: ‘ the risk of so . .

Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 552788

Norfolk County Council v The Parents and: BC (By her Child’s Guardian): FD 29 Jun 2007

References: [2007] EWHC 1566 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Holman J
This case is cited by:

Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 254469

Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order); FC 7 Sep 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 73
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
The court was asked whether, in the light of the 1998 Act, section 54(1) of the 2008 Act should be read down so as to allow parental orders to be made in favour of just one person.
Held: It could not.
Statutes: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54(1), Human Rights Act 1998 3(1)
Last Update: 08-Sep-15 Ref: 552027

GW v MW; FC 17 Jun 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 56
Links: Bailii
Coram: Peter Jackson J
Application by the father to which the respondent is the mother as to two children: J, aged six, and B, aged three. The application is to enforce a contact order. That order, amongst other things, contemplated contact taking place between the father and the children both in England and in Spain.

A Local Authority v XYZ (No 1); FC 1 Jul 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 69
Links: Bailii
Coram: Moor J
Care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y. He is six months old.
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – A Local Authority -v- XYZ (No 2) FC (Bailii, [2015] EWFC 70)
    Care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y. He is coming up to seven months old. . .

A Local Authority v XYZ (No 2); FC 3 Jul 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 70
Links: Bailii
Coram: Moor J
Care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y. He is coming up to seven months old.
This case cites:

  • See Also – A Local Authority -v- XYZ (No 1) FC (Bailii, [2015] EWFC 69)
    Care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y. He is six months old. . .