Category: Children

Re L (Psychologist – Duty To The Court): FD 20 Dec 2011

The court had made findings of non-accidental injury caused by the parents. A psychologist called in to assist the court was sympathetic to the parents invited the court to reconsider its findings of fact.
Held: The expert had gone beyond her remit and also, on other elements outside her area of expertise. It would be unsafe to rely on her report. The mother’s continuing denial made any risk assessment difficult, and it was not possible to consider that she was other than a risk to her children. Determined and persistent efforts had been made to obstruct court orders. The court made orders appropriate to its findings.

Judges:

Bellamy J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC B29 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Procedure Rules 2010 25.3, Children Act 1989 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re L (A Child: Media Reporting) FD 18-Apr-2011
The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made . .
Cited – In re B (A Child) SC 19-Nov-2009
The Court considered a decision granting to a father the care of his child who appeared to have become happily settled with the maternal grandmother.
Held: The grandmother’s appeal succeeded. The judge and court of appeal had misunderstood the . .
Cited – J v C (An Infant) HL 19-Feb-1969
The House sought to construe the meaning of the words ‘shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration’. Lord MacDermott said: ‘it seems to me that they must mean more than that the child’s welfare is to be treated as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460537

London Borough of Islington v Al-Alas and Another: FD 19 Apr 2012

The child had been taken into care at her birth, her parents having been accused of the murder of her elder brother. The parents since been acquitted at the direction of the judge at the close of the prosecution, and the court now considered the future of the child.

Judges:

Theis DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 865 (Fam), FD10C00445

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Children

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460528

Klentzeris v Klentzeris: CA 10 May 2007

In the exercise of a discretion under the Hague Convention in a child’s objections case, an additional test or requirement of ‘exceptionality’ is appropriate when the Court comes to weigh the policy considerations underlying the Convention against the general welfare considerations affecting the child in the individual case.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AF v M B-F FD 22-Feb-2008
The father sought the return of the two children to Poland after they had been brought to England by the mother. She said that she had come to seek work as a dentist, and had been unable to support the family in Poland. She said that her Polish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.253434

R (a Child), Birmingham City Council v LR (MRR’s Mother) and others: CA 20 Dec 2006

The court considered the special guardianship provisions as inserted into the 1989 Act.
Held: An individual who needed leave from the court before applying for a special guardianship order had to do so before giving notice to the local authority of his intention to apply for a special guardianship order.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1748, Times 29-Dec-2006, [2007] Fam 41, [2007] 2 WLR 1130, [2007] 1 FLR 564, [2007] 1 FCR 121

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 14A 14B 14C 14D 14E 14F, Special Guardianship Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 / 1109)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247480

MWA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 21 Dec 2011

Application for judicial review of the decisions of Birmingham City Council, the second defendant, determining him to be over 18 years old on the material dates for the purposes of the Children Act 1989.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3488 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, Children

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459738

NJDB v JEG and Another: SC 23 May 2012

Mother and father disputed whether the father should be allowed contact with their child S. Court orders had been made for residential and non-residential contact, but there were difficulties and the order for contact was reversed on the basis that S was hostile to it.
Held: The father’s appeal failed. A parent continued to have parental rights and responsibilities, notwithstanding the withdrawal of contact with the child. The court’s jurisdiction in such appeals is very limited. The Sherriff had based his decision on the welfare of S, and nor did the criticisms of counsel amount to an issue of law which might allow the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
The court discussed the difficulties inherent in allowing such disputes to become too wide ranging.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 21, 2012 GWD 19-387, 2012 SLT 840, 2012 Fam LR 56, 2012 SCLR 428

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – White v White SCS 6-Mar-2001
. .
Appeal from – NJDB v JEG SCS 22-Oct-2010
The parties dispute contact arrangements between the pursuer and their child. The cost of the proceedings, excluding judicial costs, had been estimated at about andpound;1 million, of which by far the larger proportion had been borne by the Scottish . .
Cited – JB DB and JWDWB v The Authority Reporter for Edinburgh SCS 22-Jun-2011
. .
Cited – Bronda v Italy ECHR 9-Jun-1998
In some fields of law legal rules may not be laid down with total precision. Undue delay in child contact proceedings may have irreversible effects upon the child. . .

Cited by:

Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Children

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459617

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 from all or part of the trial ‘in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require. The right of freedom of expression contained in Article 10(1) is subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties which may be imposed by the member state under Article 10(2). It would seem to me that the present procedures in family proceedings are in accordance with the spirit of the Convention.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 510, (1997) 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – 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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – P v BW (Children Cases: Hearings in Public) FD 2003
The applicant sought a joint residence order, and for a declaration that the rules preventing such hearings being in public breached the requirement for a public hearing.
Held: Both FPR 1991 rule 4.16(7) and section 97 are compatible with the . .
Cited – Clayton v Clayton CA 27-Jun-2006
The family had been through protracted family law proceedings and had been subject to orders restricting identification. The father now wanted to discuss his experiences and to campaign. He could not do so without his child being identified.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.140377

W, F, C and D (Minors) (Name Changes Disclosing Gender Reassignment and Other Matters): QBD 12 Feb 2020

Children – gender reassignment – Deed Poll – name change – welfare considerations – parental consent to name change – child’s consent – ECHR – Gender Recognition Act 2004 – Human Rights Act 1998 – privacy – Children Act 1989 s.1 – procedure – Article 8 – Article 14 – specific issue order

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 279 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.648923

Health Service Executive v SC AC: ECJ 26 Apr 2012

Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Child habitually resident in Ireland, where the child has been placed in care on many occasions – Child’s behaviour aggressive and placing herself at risk – Judgment ordering placement of the child in a secure care institution in England – Material scope of the regulation – Article 56 – Procedures for consultation and consent – Obligation to recognise or declare enforceable the decision to place the child in a secure care institution – Provisional measures – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure

Citations:

C-92/12, [2012] EUECJ C-92/12 – PPU, [2012] EUECJ C-92/12

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Children

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.459565

Robinson v Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 28 Jul 2006

The applicant had sought housing as a vulnerable person whilst under 18. The council responded by referring the matter to mediation, and postoning the review for a month which then they said allowed them to treat the applicant as not being in priority need, having then attained eighteen.
Held: The council had failed to meet its duty to the claimant. It was not permissible for the authority simply to postpone its decision in order to evade its duty.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1122, [2006] 1 WLR 3295

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.243997

A Local Authority v PD and others: FD 10 Aug 2005

Application by a number of newspapers in order to clarify the terms and effect of an injunction granted in the course of care proceedings under The Children Act 1989 relating to a six-year old child

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter, P

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1832 (Fam), 1832.html
Cite as: [2005] EWHC 1832 (Fam),

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – LM, Re (Reporting Restrictions; Coroner’s Inquest) FD 1-Aug-2007
A child had died. In earlier civil proceedings, the court had laid responsibility with the mother. Restrictions had been placed on the information which would effectively prevent the coroner conducting his inquest. The coroner sought a lifting of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Crime, Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.235552

In re L: CA 1996

In exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, the court’s function is investigative and non-adversarial. Ward LJ: the court had no power to order a residential assessment at a specified place. Millett LJ agreed, but said that a judge could impose ‘a condition which is consequential upon the giving of directions for a residential assessment under section 38(6) . .’

Judges:

Ward LJ, Millett LJ

Citations:

[1996] 2 WLR 395

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Followed – In Re M (Interim Care Order: Assessment) CA 2-Jan-1996
There was no jurisdiction under section 38(6) to order residential assessment of a family involved in care proceedings. The words ‘other assessment of the child’ had to be construed as ejusdem generis with the words ‘medical or psychiatric . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.228016

In re N (Minors: Residence): CA 18 Apr 1995

Hopeless appeals on residence orders require detachment and objectivity from legal advisers. Particularly in finely balanced matters a court of appeal should be slower to interfere in a decision.

Citations:

Ind Summary 18-Apr-1995, Times 06-Apr-1995, [1995] 2 FLR 230

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – B v B (Minor: Residence Order) CA 6-Jun-1997
The judge should consider the checklist of relevant matters in the statute in a residence application even though no complaint was made by the parties. The use of the checklist can assist a court in obtaining clarity in its reasoning. Thoough an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.85841

In Re A (A Minor) (Supervision Order: Extension): CA 11 Nov 1994

Justices do not have the power to make an interim care order pending a later hearing on the extension of an existing supervision order.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 FLR 335

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – T (A Child) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council CA 19-Mar-2008
A supervision order had been made for twelve months. There was a concern at contact with the mother’s mother’s partner. The father appealed refusal of an order extending the period to three years.
Held: Such an order was permissible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.81620

In Re F (A Minor) (Criminal Proceedings): CA 12 Dec 1994

A father’s defence solicitor was entitled to interview children as witnesses of an alleged assault on the mother.

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-1994, Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Children, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.81876

In Re O (A Minor) (Contact: Imposition of Conditions): CA 17 Mar 1995

The court may impose detailed conditions on the form of indirect contact. His Lordship set out the relevant principles: ‘1 Overriding all else, as provided by section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child was the paramount consideratin, and the court was concerned with the interests of the mother and the father only in so far as they bore on the welfare of the child.
2 It was almost always in the interests of a child whose parents were separated that he or she whould have contact with the parent with whom the child was not living.
3 The court had power to enforce orders for contact, which it should not hesitate to exercise where it judged that that would overall promote the welfare of the child to do so.
4 Cases did not, unhappily and infrequently but occasionally, arise in which a court was compelled to conclude that in existing circumstances an order for immediate direct contact should not be ordered, because so to order would injure the welfare of the child: see In re D (a Minor) (Contact: Mother’s hostility)
5 In cases in which, for whatever reasons, direct contact could not for te time being be ordered, it was ordinarily highly desirable that there should be indirect contact so that the child grew up knowing of the love and interest of the absent parent with whom, in due course, direct contact should be established.’ After referring to In Re O: ‘The courts should not at all readily acept that the child’s welfare will be injured by direct contact. Jodging that question, the court should take a medium-term and long-term view of the child’s development and not accord excessive weight to what appear likely to be short-term or transient problems. Neither parent should be encouraged or permitted to think that the more unreasonable, the more obdurate and the more unco-operative they are, the more likely thay are to go their own way.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 17-Mar-1995, [1995] 2 FLR 124

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 1(1) 11(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re D (a Minor) (Contact: Mother’s Hostility) CA 1993
Waite LJ: ‘It is now well settled that the implacable hostility of a mother towards access or contact is a factor which is capable, according to the circumstances of each particular case, of supplying a cogent reason for departing from the general . .
Cited – In re J (a Minor) (Contact) CA 1994
Balcombe LJ said: ‘But before concluding this judgment, I would like to make three general points. The first is that judges should be very reluctant to allow the implacable hostility of one parent (usually the parent who has a residence order in his . .

Cited by:

Cited – In Re P (Minors) (Contact) CA 15-May-1996
The father appealed an order refusing him direct contact with the child. The judge had made the order because he considered that the mother’s hostility to contact made it likely that her health would suffer if contact was ordered, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.82084

In Re D (a Minor) (Contact: Mother’s Hostility): CA 1993

Waite LJ: ‘It is now well settled that the implacable hostility of a mother towards access or contact is a factor which is capable, according to the circumstances of each particular case, of supplying a cogent reason for departing from the general pronciple that a child should grow up in the knowledge of both his parents.
I see no reason to think that the judge fell into any error of principle in deciding as he clearly did on the plain interpretation of his judgment, that the mother’s present atitude towards contact puts D at serious risk of major emotional harm if she were to be compelled to accept a degree of contact to the natural father against her will.’

Judges:

Waite LJ

Citations:

[1993] 2 FLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re O (A Minor) (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) CA 17-Mar-1995
The court may impose detailed conditions on the form of indirect contact. His Lordship set out the relevant principles: ‘1 Overriding all else, as provided by section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child was the paramount . .
Cited – In Re P (Minors) (Contact) CA 15-May-1996
The father appealed an order refusing him direct contact with the child. The judge had made the order because he considered that the mother’s hostility to contact made it likely that her health would suffer if contact was ordered, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.241340

Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor): CA 1993

An application was made by the local authority to take into care the daughter of a 15 year old mother. The question was whether any priority was to be given to the daughter’s interests when the mother herself was also a child.
Held: When the upbringing of both mother and daughter was involved under the Act, section 1(1) was engaged also for the mother: ‘So the question of contact between R (the baby) and M (the mother) relates to the upbringing of each of them and in each case the Act requires that their welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. But this is an impossibility. ‘Paramount’ means ‘above all others in rank, order or jurisdiction; supreme’ – see the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edn.) On one and the same issue, contact between them, M’s welfare cannot rank above R’s welfare and his above hers . . I can think of no reason why Parliament should have intended, when a question with respect to the upbringing of two children is before the court, that the court should regard one child’s interests as paramount to that of the other. Accordingly, in my judgment, while the welfare of M and R, taken together is to be considered as paramount to the interests of any adults concerned in their lives, as between themselves the court must approach the question of their welfare without giving one priority over the other. You start with an evenly balanced pair of scales. Of course, when you start to put into the scales the matters relevant to each child – and in particular those listed in s 1(3) – the result may come down in favour of one rather than the other, but that is a balancing exercise which the court is well used to conducting in cases concerning children.

Judges:

Balcombe LJ, Kennedy LJ and Evans LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 FLR 883

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) and Others HL 16-Dec-1993
The local authority applied for a care order in respect of a young baby. The mother was only 15 and was a ‘child’ herself.
Held: In an application under 34(4) the interests of the child who is the subject of the application are paramount, and . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) and Others HL 16-Dec-1993
The local authority applied for a care order in respect of a young baby. The mother was only 15 and was a ‘child’ herself.
Held: In an application under 34(4) the interests of the child who is the subject of the application are paramount, and . .
Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.213651

Re C (a Minor) (Adoption: Parental Agreement: Contact): CA 1993

Where adoption is to be considered against the will of the parent, the court should recognise when asking whether the opposition was unreasonable that the test is objective and supposes that this person is endowed with a mind and temperament capable of making reasonable decisions: ‘. . making the freeing order, the judge had to decide that the mother was ‘withholding her agreement unreasonably’. This question had to be answered according to an objective standard. In other words, it required the judge to assume that the mother was not, as she in fact was, a person of limited intelligence and inadequate grasp of the emotional and other needs of a lively little girl of 4. Instead she had to be assumed to be a woman with a full perception of her own deficiencies and an ability to evaluate dispassionately the evidence and opinions of the experts. She was also to be endowed with the intelligence and altruism needed to appreciate, if such were the case, that her child’s welfare would be so much better served by adoption that her own maternal feelings should take second place.
Such a paragon does not of course exist: she shares with the ‘reasonable man’ the quality of being, as Lord Radcliffe once said, an ‘anthropomorphic conception of justice’. The law conjures the imaginary parent into existence to give expression to what it considers that justice requires as between the welfare of the child as perceived by the judge on the one hand and the legitimate views and interests of the natural parents on the other. The characteristics of the notional reasonable parent have been expounded on many occasions: see for example Lord Wilberforce in In re D (Adoption: Parent’s Consent) [1977] AC 602, 625 (‘endowed with a mind and temperament capable of making reasonable decisions’). The views of such a parent will not necessarily coincide with the judge’s views as to what the child’s welfare requires.’

Judges:

Steyn and Hoffmann LJJ

Citations:

[1993] 2 FLR 260

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re W (An Infant) HL 1971
The court considered the reasonability of parental disagreement in applications for adoption: ‘Two reasonable parents can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as . .
Cited – In re D (An Infant) (Adoption: Parent’s Consent) HL 1977
The father opposed adoption of a child by the mother and her new husband. The House was asked whether his opposition was unreasonable.
Held: Lord Wilberforce said: ‘What, in my understanding, is required is for the court to ask whether the . .

Cited by:

Cited – In Re F (Minors) (Adoption: Freeing Order) CA 4-Jul-2000
A judge had declined to make a freeing order, where it was clear that the children would not be returned to their parents, and the proposed adoption arrangements, which would split the children between two families, was opposed by the father on that . .
Cited – Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and Another v H and Another HL 12-Jul-2006
The House considered when adoption law would allow an adoption without the consent of the birth parent where there had been some continuing contact between that parent and the child.
Held: (Baroness Hale dissenting) The appeal against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.181233

Regina v Northavon District Council, ex parte Smith: CA 4 Aug 1993

A local Authority has a duty to act upon a housing request for children even though the family were intentionally homeless.

Citations:

Independent 18-Aug-1993, Times 04-Aug-1993

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Northavon District Council ex parte Smith HL 18-Jul-1994
Local Authority is under no obligation to provide permanent housing for a family with children save as provided under the Act. The Children Act not to be used as a way around homelessness decisions and rules. A Social Services request to house . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87474

Regina v Kirklees Borough Council ex parte C (A Minor): CA 12 Apr 1993

A Local Authority may admit a minor in care to a mental hospital for assessment or treatment. Section 131 merely preserves or confirms the common law and previous law. Consent requires proof of conduct and a reasoning capacity.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Apr-1993, [1993] FLR 187

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 131

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – L v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust Admn 9-Oct-1997
L was adult autistic. He had been admitted to mental hospital for fear of his self-harming behaviours, and detained informally. He complained that that detention was unlawful.
Held: The continued detention of a mental health patient who is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Children, Health

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87087

In Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Restraint of Publication): CA 25 Apr 1994

In a criminal case involving a ward of court, the judge in the criminal case may restrict the reporting without leaving it for the wardship Judge. The jurisdiction of the High Court in cases involving the care and upbringing of children over whose welfare the court is exercising a supervisory role is ‘ . . . theoretically unlimited. But in practice its exercise is limited by the nature and source of the jurisdiction itself, which is historically derived from the protective jurisdiction of the Crown as parens patriae’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 25-Apr-1994, [1994] 1 Fam 254

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re S (A Child) CA 10-Jul-2003
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.82140

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 unassisted party.
Neill LJ said: ‘In the last decade, however, it has become the general practice in proceedings relating to the custody and care and control of children to make no order as to the costs of the proceedings except in exceptional circumstances’, but it was ‘unnecessary and undesirable to try to limit or place into rigid categories the cases which a court might regard as suitable for such an award’.

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

Times 28-Oct-1994, Independent 21-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 FLR 259

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 18(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – 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.

Legal Aid, Children

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.82702

H (a Minor) (Foreign Custody Order: Enforcement): CA 19 Nov 1993

After a divorce, the Belgian Court had granted the father a contact order, for him to receive her at home at holidays. The mother moved to England, breaching the order. The father had the order registered here, then sought to enforce it. The court had found the girl to have a genuine fear of the father, but thought that he had no discretion.
Held: The High court did indeed have a discretion. The phrase ‘recognition and enforcement’ were to be read disjunctively, and enforcement would not follow automatically from registration. A foreign court order need not be enforced here if it was clearly no longer in the child’s best interests.

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 22-Nov-1993, [1994] 2 WLR 269

Statutes:

European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions etc 10(1), Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 16 S2-A10(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Jurisdiction

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81917

In Re H (A Minor): CA 23 Feb 1993

No priority is to be given for one child as between children in family. When a court considered the interests in contact between two children or a child mother and her child, the court had to refuse to give either child priority, but instead must start from a position of equality, and find a successful balance, as is a common and difficult task in these matters.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81918

In Re F (Minors) (Parental Home: Ouster): CA 1 Dec 1993

Neither the Children Act nor the court’s inherent jurisdiction allows the making of an ouster order without violence. A specific issue order gave no jurisdiction for the ouster of a joint tenant father. In the case of an ouster order to protect children, the court may use its power to order a transfer of property.

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, Ind Summary 13-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Family

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81880

In R B (Minors) (Wardship: Power to Detain): CA 24 May 1994

A wardship court may not order the detention of a person after an arrest without a finding first of contempt.

Citations:

Times 24-May-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 479

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zakharov and Others v White and Others ChD 28-Oct-2003
The defendant challenged a bench warrant issued out of the Chancery Division for his arrest. He said the lack of any written procedure made it non-compliant with his human rights, and a warrant could not be issued without a finding of contempt.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81611

Re T (A Child): FD 7 Feb 2020

This is an application made by the applicant Local Authority for a declaration that it is in the interests of T (a 10-month-old child) to receive a schedule of vaccinations.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hayden

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 220 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.648627

Local Authority v W and others: FD 11 Jul 2003

Application made in care proceedings instituted by a local authority in relation to a number of children, the eldest of whom is 16 – the local authority seeks directions from the court about the extent to which it may disclose to the other parties to the proceedings (and in particular to the mother) a sensitive piece of confidential information which it has received from the police, and which the police do not want disclosed any further. The information in question has been shared with the children’s guardian, but with nobody else. In particular, the mother has not been served with the application, and does not know of its existence.

Judges:

Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1624 (Fam), [2004] 1 All ER 787, [2004] 1 WLR 1494

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Local Government

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.235738

Regina v Endicott: CACD 3 Dec 1999

A sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon a youth of 14 for the offence of arson with intent to damage property or recklessness as to whether damage would be cause was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. There is no sentence in such situations which can properly balance the welfare needs of the child and the needs of the public.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(3), Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Children

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85248

Re Al M (Factfinding): FD 11 Dec 2019

Judges:

The Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3415 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – RE Al M (Assurances and Waiver) FD 17-Jan-2020
. .
See Also – Re Al M (Publication) FD 27-Jan-2020
. .
See Also – Re Al M (Children) CA 28-Feb-2020
Publication of Children judgment – wide publicity
F brought wardship proceedings in respect of M and F’s two children, seeking their return to Dubai. F was the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai. Media companies now sought publication of earlier judgments, and F appealed from an order for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.648703

RE Al M (Assurances and Waiver): FD 17 Jan 2020

Judges:

The Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 67 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Re Al M (Factfinding) FD 11-Dec-2019
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Re Al M (Publication) FD 27-Jan-2020
. .
See also – Re Al M (Children) CA 28-Feb-2020
Publication of Children judgment – wide publicity
F brought wardship proceedings in respect of M and F’s two children, seeking their return to Dubai. F was the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai. Media companies now sought publication of earlier judgments, and F appealed from an order for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.648612

Re W (Children): CA 25 Feb 2016

Appeal against order as to media arrangements for fact finding hearing.
McFarlane LJ said: ‘In the present case, Jackson J used the power available to him to move from the default position so as to allow a controlled degree of publicity. This was a matter for the judge’s discretion. It was common ground before this court that that discretion must be exercised by conducting a balancing exercise between the rights to privacy and a private life which are encompassed within ECHR Art 8, on the one hand, and the right to freedom of expression reflected in Art 10. The parties in this appeal each accepted that the exercise of judicial discretion whether to relax, or increase, the default restrictions upon publication of information from CA 1989 proceedings is not one in which paramount consideration must be afforded to the welfare of the child who is the subject of the proceedings. That acceptance was based upon a number of first instance decisions, together with the President’s Guidance on the publication of judgments.’

Judges:

McFarlane, Macur, King LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 113, [2016] WLR(D) 105, [2016] 4 WLR 39, [2016] 3 FCR 63

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1960 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re Al M (Children) CA 28-Feb-2020
Publication of Children judgment – wide publicity
F brought wardship proceedings in respect of M and F’s two children, seeking their return to Dubai. F was the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai. Media companies now sought publication of earlier judgments, and F appealed from an order for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.560264