Category: Children

Bouamar v Belgium: ECHR 29 Feb 1988

Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved; Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
A person detained as a juvenile in need of educational supervision should not be detained in a prison where no education is available. The applicant’s successive placements in a remand prison, by way of interim custody measure, amounted to unlawful detention under Article 5-1 and that he had not been able to take any proceedings satisfying the requirements of Article 5

Citations:

9106/80, [1988] ECHR 1, (1989) 11 EHRR 1

Links:

Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
See Also – Bouamar v Belgium ECHR 27-Jun-1988
. .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children, Education

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.165007

A (Children) (Contact: Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender Parent): FC 20 Jan 2020

M and F, members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect, had five children. F transgendered and sought and was granted an order for restricted indirect contact. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Held: F now accepted with great reluctance the children’s opposition to contact, and the matter as formally abandoned.

Judges:

Hayden J

Citations:

[2020] EWFC 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FD (1) – J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) FC 30-Jan-2017
F had left the family all ultra orthodox Jews, to identify and live as a woman, an action straightforwardly forbidden within the sect. F had abandoned contact with the children but now sought to re-instate at first indirect but then full contact. M, . .
At CA – Re M (Children) CA 20-Dec-2017
F and M were members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect. H transgendered, a process utterly unacceptable within the sect. Any continued association with the children would severely risk their ostracism, and at first F did not seek contact, but on his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.646220

In re J (Children): CA 3 Apr 2012

The mother JJ’s first baby had died after physical abuse inflicted either by her or the father. In care proceedings for a later child, the judge concluded ‘T-L’s injuries could have been inflicted by either, or both, of them. Singling out a likely perpetrator does not help this couple because it must be debatable as to which is worse, to inflict this injury or to protect the person responsible. On these findings it is very difficult to see how either parent, let alone both together, could be safely entrusted in the future with the care of S.’ The mother later took up with a new partner who brought his own children to the relationship. She then had another child by the first father. Though she had been living with the new partner for three years, the local authority began care proceedings. The couple said that it was wrong to base the threshold conditions required under the Act on historical findings in respect of a different relationship. The court had held that it was wrong. The authority now appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. It was only possible to base a finding of likelihood of substantial hrm on an earlier finding if that earlier finding was itself at least a finding of harm on a balance of probabilities. The possibility of harm on an earlier occasion was not sufficient.
Leave was given to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Judges:

Judge LCJ, Neuberger MR, McFarlane LJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
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 . .
Cited – 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 J (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The mother had been, whilst in a previous relationship, involved in care proceedings after the death from physical abuse of her baby. Whilst being severely critical of her, the court had been unable to identify the author of the child’s death. Now, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452440

Re M (Children): CA 20 Dec 2017

F and M were members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect. H transgendered, a process utterly unacceptable within the sect. Any continued association with the children would severely risk their ostracism, and at first F did not seek contact, but on his application limited indirect contact was ordered.
Held: Appeal allowed The Judge had not engaged sufficiently with the complex interplay of Article 9: the right to manifest one’s religion; Article 14: prohibition of discrimination; and the reach and scope of the Equality Act 2010. The matter was remitted for further consideration.

Judges:

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2164, [2018] 2 FLR 800, [2018] WLR(D) 165, [2018] 4 WLR 60, [2018] 3 All ER 316, [2018] 2 FCR 559

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) FC 30-Jan-2017
F had left the family all ultra orthodox Jews, to identify and live as a woman, an action straightforwardly forbidden within the sect. F had abandoned contact with the children but now sought to re-instate at first indirect but then full contact. M, . .

Cited by:

At CA – A (Children) (Contact: Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender Parent) FC 20-Jan-2020
M and F, members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect, had five children. F transgendered and sought and was granted an order for restricted indirect contact. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.601852

J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender): FC 30 Jan 2017

F had left the family all ultra orthodox Jews, to identify and live as a woman, an action straightforwardly forbidden within the sect. F had abandoned contact with the children but now sought to re-instate at first indirect but then full contact. M, fearing the ostracism of the children opposed all but very limited indirect contact.
Held: There was a clear conflict between the rights and proper expectations of the parties. In this case, the probability was that the children would face ostracism from others within their faith group. Only limited and indirect contact as appropriate.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2017] EWFC 4, [2017] WLR(D) 142, [2017] 2 FCR 230, [2017] 4 WLR 201, [2018] 1 FLR 59

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Re M (Children) CA 20-Dec-2017
F and M were members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect. H transgendered, a process utterly unacceptable within the sect. Any continued association with the children would severely risk their ostracism, and at first F did not seek contact, but on his . .
At FD (1) – A (Children) (Contact: Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender Parent) FC 20-Jan-2020
M and F, members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect, had five children. F transgendered and sought and was granted an order for restricted indirect contact. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Children

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.573770

A v B and Another: CA 14 Mar 2012

The biological (avowedly homosexual) father of the child appealed against an order limiting his contact with the child living with the mother and her lesbian partner.

Judges:

Thorpe, Black, LJJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 285

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452170

Regina (Rose and Another) v Secretary of State for Health and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 26 Jul 2002

Applications were made, challenging the refusal of the Secretary of State for Health, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to institute a system where a child born by artificial insemination could make enquiries as to his or her parenthood.
Held: The knowledge of facts about one’s biological parenthood was part of the right to family or private life. Accordingly the decisions made did engage the children’s Human Rights, and the appropriate tests should be applied to that decision making process.

Judges:

Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

Times 22-Aug-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Administrative, Health

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.174720

X v Latvia: ECHR 13 Dec 2011

Citations:

27853/09, [2011] ECHR 2104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Re S (A Child) SC 14-Mar-2012
The mother appealed against an order confirmed by the Court of Appeal for the return of her child to Australia. The mother and father had cohabited in Sydney, before M returned with S without F’s consent or the permission of an Australian court. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.450026

MD v CT: FD 25 Mar 2014

Mother’s appeal against orders which registered, and permitted enforcement of, a judgment made the Tribunal de Grande Instance d’Evry. Those orders for registration and enforcement were made pursuant to Article 28(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility.
Held: Mostyn J pointed out that there were no reported cases about Articles 22(b) or 23(c) but there were an appreciable number under the corresponding provision, Article 45, of Council Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) and its predecessor, Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Judgments Regulation’).
After considering the relevant authorities, a defendant who is resisting the recognition of an EU divorce or parental responsibility judgment must prove three things:
i) First, the defendant must show that the divorce was obtained in default of his or her appearance. This does not mean merely that the defendant was physically absent. If the defendant has already chosen to take part in the proceedings by defending them or even by challenging the jurisdiction, he or she may be said to have already ‘appeared’ and thus not be in default of appearance.
ii) Second, the defendant must show that he or she was not served in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his or her defence. Even where there has been formal valid service the court of registration is entitled to examine whether on the ground and in the real world there was actual service of the originating application or an acceptable substitute sufficiently far ahead of the hearing to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence. In an exceptional case the court can so conclude.
iii) Third, it must be shown that the defendant has not accepted the divorce judgment unequivocally. I observed that it is hard to imagine a state of affairs where this comes into play. It is irrelevant under B2R if the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him or her to do so (in contrast to the Judgments Regulation) or if he or she had concealed his or her whereabouts from the person who instituted the proceedings in the overseas court (in contrast to the Luxembourg Convention).’

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 871 (Fam), [2015] 1 FLR 213

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.523361

Button v Salama: FD 19 Dec 2013

The father had repeatedly failed to obey court orders for the return of the family’s daughter to the UK. He had been subject to terms of imprisonment and now faced anotehr application. The court considered whether the total time now spend in prison was excessive. He had not committed an actual criminal offence in the UK.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4152 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Button v Salama FD 2-Jul-2013
An order had been made placing the child of the parties under wardship. The mother now applied for an order to commit the father to prison for contempt of court in failing to abide by orders made. He had taken the child to Egypt, and now said that . .
Cited – Re W (A Child) (Abduction: Committal) CA 17-Aug-2011
If the sentence for an original breach of a court order has expired without compliance on the part of the contemnor – then it is necessary first to make another order specifying another date for compliance, followed, in the event of non-compliance, . .
See Also – Button v Salama FD 27-Sep-2013
The court made orders further imprisoning the father for his repeated failures to comply with court orders for the return of the child of the family from Egypt. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.519683

C (A Child), Re: FD 19 Jul 2013

Application for a parental order made by A and B in relation to a little boy, C, born in 2012 and so is just over seven months old. The respondents to the application are D and E. C was carried by D following a surrogacy arrangement entered into by the parties through a surrogacy agency based in California.

Judges:

Theis J DBE

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2408 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.514454

S v C: CA 2 Dec 2011

The father appealed against the refusal of an order for the return of a child, the mother having brought her here from Australia against the father’s wishes.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The crucial question as being whether the mother’s anxieties were realistically and reasonably held.

Judges:

Thorpe, Longmore, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1385, [2012] Fam Law 261, [2012] 1 FCR 172

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

1980 Hague Abduction Convention, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Re S (A Child) SC 14-Mar-2012
The mother appealed against an order confirmed by the Court of Appeal for the return of her child to Australia. The mother and father had cohabited in Sydney, before M returned with S without F’s consent or the permission of an Australian court. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449383

J v C and E (a Child) (Void Marriage: Status of Children): CA 15 May 2006

The parties had lived together as a married couple. They had had a child together by artificial insemination. It was then revealed that Mr J was a woman. The parties split up, and Mr J applied for an order for contact with the child.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The HFEA Act required that to acquire parenthood of a child conceived by IVF treatment the party claiming should be married to the mother. That required a valid marriage which was not present in this case, and the applicant was not the father.
Section 9 of the 2004 Act ‘does not rewrite history’, the issue of a full GRC in the male gender to a person who was previously female did not retrospectively validate his prior marriage to another female (at a time when the law did not provide for same sex marriages), with the result that he did not become the father of a child born to the other female as a result of artificial insemination by donor (as would otherwise have been the case under section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which provided that the husband of a woman who gives birth as a result of AID was to be treated for all purposes as the father of the child).

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Richards LJ

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 551, [2007] Fam 1, [2006] 3 WLR 876

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law Reform Act 1987, Gender Recognition Act 2004, Children Act 1989 8, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11( c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – S v S-T (Formerly J) CA 25-Nov-1996
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but the purported husband was many years later revealed to be a female to male transsexual. The marriage had been annulled. There was now an application for ancillary relief.
Held: Ancillary . .
Cited – Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) FD 1-Feb-1970
There had been a purported marriage in 1963 between a man and a male to female trans-sexual.
Held: Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex, and not on gender. The law should adopt the . .

Cited by:

Cited – C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 1-Nov-2017
This case is about how the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP), in administering our complex welfare benefits system, treats people with a reassigned gender, and specifically whether certain policies conflict (1) with the Gender Recognition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.241681

A Local Authority v S and W and T By her Guardian: FD 27 May 2004

A child had died. The father was accused and acquitted of murder by way of shaken baby syndrome. The local authority persisted with an application for care orders for the other children.
Held: ‘I do not claim to have divined truth. I have reached conclusions based on what I believe to have been proved to the requisite standard by the evidence. I have done so with the perspective of the surviving child uppermost in my mind. I do not mean that my conclusions of fact have been influenced by any consideration of her welfare (that consideration is for the future); what I mean is that the purpose of this hearing has not been to try either the mother or W but to determine whether facts exist to justify state intervention in the life of T and also the factual matrix within which the welfare inquiry is now to be undertaken. ‘ The case was made out and the order confirmed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hedley

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1270 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – In re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
Cited – Regina v Angela Cannings CACD 19-Jan-2004
The defendant had been convicted of murdering her children. The substance of the evidence against her was that on a medical expert. His evidence was disputed and later doubted.
Held: Appeal allowed. In general courts should be careful to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Raja v Van Hoogstraten ChD 19-Dec-2005
Damages were claimed after claimant alleged involvement by the defendant in the murder of the deceased. The defendant had been tried and acquitted of murder and manslaughter, but the allegation was now pursued. The defendant had since failed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.197777

In re K (Children): CA 17 Dec 2019

Local authority’s appeal from the refusal of its application for interim care orders in relation to two children, O (aged 8) and M (aged 6). The appeal is opposed by the children’s parents but supported by their Children’s Guardian. The central issue is whether the Judge was entitled to the view that she took about the level of risk at an interim stage of the proceedings.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 2264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.645859

Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania: ECHR 2000

‘Although coercive measures towards children are far from desirable in such sensitive matters, sanctions should not be ruled out where the parent living with the children acts unlawfully.’

Citations:

(2000) 31 EHRR 212

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Mentioned – 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 . .
See Also – Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania ECHR 25-Jan-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.195619

VC and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle City Council: Admn 24 Oct 2011

Judges:

Munby LJ, Langstaff J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin), [2012] 1 FCR 206, [2012] Fam Law 280, [2012] PTSR 546

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Citing:

Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Immigration, Children, Benefits

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448305

In re A and L (Children) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasoning) (Practice Note): CA 27 Oct 2011

The mother appealed against a factual findings made in the course of care proceedings as to her involvement in sexual abuse of the children.
Held: The court gave guidance as to the reconsideration of a court’s decision. Munby LJ said: ‘it is the responsibility of the advocate, whether or not invited to do so by the judge, to raise with the judge and draw to his attention any material omission in the judgment, any genuine query or ambiguity which arises on the judgment, and any perceived lack of reasons or other perceived deficiency in the judge’s reasoning process.’

Judges:

Patten, Munby, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1205, [2012] Fam Law 8, [2012] 1 FLR 134, [2012] 1 FCR 379, [2012] CP Rep 6, [2012] 1 WLR 595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re L and B (Children) CA 18-Jul-2012
In care proceedings, there had been protracted fact finding hearings. The judge had given a preliminary report as to her conclusions, but received a communication from counsel for the father requesting her to re-address certain aspects. She later . .
Cited – Re L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448293

Re W (A Child) (Abduction: Committal): CA 17 Aug 2011

If the sentence for an original breach of a court order has expired without compliance on the part of the contemnor – then it is necessary first to make another order specifying another date for compliance, followed, in the event of non-compliance, by an application for committal for breach not of the original but of the further order.

Judges:

Hughes, Tomlinson, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1196, [2012] Fam Law 389, [2012] 2 FLR 133, [2012] 1 WLR 1036

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re A (A Child) (Abduction: Contempt) CA 21-Aug-2008
The father apealed against his sentence of committal for contempt of court in the course of children proceedings. During a dispute over residence, he took the child to his family in Syria and returned alone. He had then disobeyed orders requiring . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Cited – Button v Salama FD 2-Jul-2013
An order had been made placing the child of the parties under wardship. The mother now applied for an order to commit the father to prison for contempt of court in failing to abide by orders made. He had taken the child to Egypt, and now said that . .
Cited – Button v Salama FD 27-Sep-2013
The court made orders further imprisoning the father for his repeated failures to comply with court orders for the return of the child of the family from Egypt. . .
Cited – Button v Salama FD 19-Dec-2013
The father had repeatedly failed to obey court orders for the return of the family’s daughter to the UK. He had been subject to terms of imprisonment and now faced anotehr application. The court considered whether the total time now spend in prison . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447636

Re M (A Child): CA 18 Aug 2011

Appeal brought initially by a mother in the course of ongoing care proceedings relating now to two young children but now also joined as an appellant by the father of the youngest child to whom we have given leave to appeal today.

Judges:

Hughes, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1161

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447490

C v C: PC 31 Oct 2019

(Jersey) Disputed parentage where child registered with non-Jersey father.

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales JJSC

Citations:

[2019] UKPC 40, [2019] WLR(D) 622

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.645933