Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Children - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 65 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
In Re C (leave to remove from the jurisdiction) [2000] 2 FLR 457
2000
CA
Morritt, Thorpe and Chadwick LJJ
Children
The court heard an appeal from an order made on an application for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction.
Children Act 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Re W (ex-parte orders); FD 2000 - [2000] 2FLR 92
 
A v M (Family Proceedings: Publicity) [2000] 1 FLR 562
2000
FD
Charles J
Media, Children
In the course of a child residence and contact dispute, M made allegations against F of abuse against the child C. The allegations were investigated and substantially rejected. M passed private court materials to the press. F obtained an injunction against her, but she withdrew from the proceedings. F now sought an injunction against the media. Held: The injunction should be granted. The court's inherent jurisdiction to protect the well being of C. Though materials may be in the public domain, repetitions could still be hurtful and damaging to C. The need for the freedom of speech was to be balanced against the paramount importance given to C's interests. In this case that balance was in favour of the injunction.
1 Citers


 
Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania (2000) 31 EHRR 212
2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
"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."
1 Citers


 
In Re N (Leave to withdraw care proceedings) [2000] 1 FCR 258
2000


Children, Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers


 
L v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Havering London Borough Council [2000] 3 All ER 346
2000


Children, Litigation Practice


 
In re A (permission to remove child from jurisdiction: human rights) [2000] 2 FLR 225
2000
CA
Ward and Buxton LJJ
Children, Human Rights
The mother had been given leave by the Recorder to remove a ten month old girl permanently from the jurisdiction to the United States in circumstances where the mother`s job prospects were better in New York than in England. The father, (in person) raised the question of a breach of his right under Article 8(1). The Court considered the effect of Article 8 but saw no reason to interfere with the established line of authority followed by the judge and which bound the Court. Held. Leave was refused. Buxton LJ doubted whether the difficult balancing exercise performed by the judge came within the purview of the Convention at all.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 - Human Rights Act 1998 - Children Act 1989
1 Citers


 
Re H (Abduction: Child of Sixteen) [2000] 2 FLR 51
2000
FD
Bracewell J
Children
The court considered the position as to whether a child was to be deemed to be settled after having been within the UK for a period of more than one year: "It is the case, looking at the relative dates, that these proceedings were commenced after the expiration of the period of one year from the date of removal. It is, in my judgment, necessary to consider why the proceedings were so delayed. That, in my opinion, is relevant to the question of settlement because it was made plain in the case of Re L (Abduction: Pending Criminal Proceedings) [1999] 1 FLR 433, 441 that time in hiding cannot go to establish settlement and it is not good law for the abducting parent to be able to say 'well, I have managed to evade the wronged parent; I have managed to hide my address and whereabouts of the children and I am going to rely on that in advance of the argument that the children have been so long in the jurisdiction that they have now settled in that environment and the court should exercise a judgment not to return them to the original jurisdiction'. Further, in that context it is relevant to consider when the father knew of the whereabouts of the children. I am satisfied that the father first knew of the children's whereabouts in December 1998 when he received a letter from K. Even if the mother wrote in May 1998 and whether or not the father received such a letter, it does not, in my judgment, affect this aspect of the case because the mother did not set out her address and indicated that she would be staying in England for at least a few months. At that date, on any view of the matter, the mother was making representations which did not constitute a determination to remain permanently in this jurisdiction. It was in fact misleading as far as the father was concerned, because I am satisfied that when the mother wrongfully removed the children she intended to stay permanently within this jurisdiction but had no intention of so informing the father. The mother in effect was playing ducks and drakes with the father. She did not disclose her address and she did not inform the school in Australia that she was removing the children. When K did inform the father of the address shortly thereafter there was a removal to another address, and plainly, on the totality of the evidence, the mother was unwilling to have any meaningful contact with the father or to give him any information which might assist him to take any proceedings in relation to the children. Having regard to the fact, as I find, that the father did not know the whereabouts of the children until December 1998, it follows that within 12 months of that time he did in fact bring proceedings. That is a relevant matter in considering whether or not the children had settled. I find that the mother cannot, in the circumstances of this case, rely upon the settlement of the children in this jurisdiction. It is plain from the authorities what settlement consists of and, so far as these children are concerned, I do not find that they come into the ambit of the test in Re N (Minors) (Abduction) [1991] 1 FLR 413. Settlement has to be looked at at the date of commencement of proceedings and it is to be given its ordinary meaning with two constituents physical and emotional."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In Re X (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Parental Responsibility) Times, 19 January 2000; Gazette, 07 January 2000
7 Jan 2000
FD

Children
Even though a local authority had obtained an interim care order in an application for the child to be committed to its care, that did not prevent the unmarried mother entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the child's father. The children were subject to interim orders, and the plan was to place them for adoption. The father's signing of such an agreement was not an act exercising parental responsibility, and therefore neither could the mother's signature be, and the Act was not limited by the interim order.
Children Act 1989 94


 
 In Re W (A Minor) (Parental Contact: Prohibition); CA 20-Jan-2000 - Times, 21 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte A; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000; [2000] UKHL 4; [2000] 2 AC 276; [2000] 1 All ER 651; [2000] 2 WLR 293; [2000] Crim LR 321
 
G v G [2000] EWCA Civ 509; [2000] 3 FCR 53; [2000] 2 FLR 36; [2000] Fam Law 466
1 Feb 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Mazurek v France 34406/97; [2000] ECHR 48; (2006) 42 EHRR 9
1 Feb 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Children, Wills and Probate
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re T and Another (Children); CA 1-Feb-2000 - Times, 01 February 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000

 
 In Re H (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody); HL 3-Feb-2000 - Times, 08 February 2000; Gazette, 17 February 2000; [2000] UKHL 6; [2000] 2 WLR 337; [2000] 2 AC 291; [2000] 1 FCR 225; [2000] 2 All ER 1
 
Irene M Scott v The United Kingdom 34745/97; [2000] ECHR 698; 2000 Fam LR 102; [2000] 1 FLR 958; [2000] Fam Law 538; [2000] 2 FCR 560
8 Feb 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
(Admissibility) The court was asked whether the mother's Article 8 rights had been breached by a local authority who had applied to free her child for adoption, the court once again stated that 'the best interests of the child is always of crucial importance'.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re O; In Re J (Minors) (Blood Tests: Constraint); FD 10-Feb-2000 - Times, 22 March 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000
 
Under Sec 51 of the Children (S) Act 1995 In the Cause Iain Robert Mitchell, Authority Reporter for North Ayrshire v S H [2000] ScotCS 40
11 Feb 2000
SCS

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Direction (Crown Court: Trial of Children and Young Persons) Times, 17 February 2000
17 Feb 2000
LCJ

Criminal Practice, Children
Directions given to ensure that young persons tried in a Crown Court receive a fair trial allowing for their age and understanding. The trial procedure must not expose the child to humiliation or distress, consideration should be given to splitting off of any adult defendants, consideration should be given to the physical layout of the court, and the court's daily timetables and otherwise.

 
In re B (A Child) [2000] EWCA Civ 511
22 Feb 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re B (Sexual Abuse: Expert's Report) [2000] EWCA Civ 516; [2000] 2 FCR 8; [2000] Fam Law 479; (2000) 164 JPN 624; [2000] 1 FLR 871
22 Feb 2000
CA

Children, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A; HL 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 17 March 2000; Gazette, 30 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 16; [2000] 2 AC 147; [2000] 1 FLR 583; [2000] 2 All ER 97
 
Plymouth City Council v C and Another Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000; [2000] 1 FLR 875
21 Mar 2000
CA
Thorpe LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ
Children, Local Government
Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the period to be disregarded under the Act for any temporary placement. The court reaffirmed the simple test in Northamptonshire ‘should be sufficient to determine all but the most exceptional cases’. It did not give the judge some sort of discretionary exit from the plain application of the mechanism contained in sections 31 and 105’. (Swinton Thomas LJ) "It is clear, as my lord has said in his judgment, that what was intended in that passage was to leave the door open for circumstances or facts which might arise, which could properly, in the context of that decision, be regarded as exceptional. As at present, I do not find it possible myself to envisage facts which would be exceptional, although I entirely accept that it could be that such facts could arise and that it would be right for the court to leave that possibility open."
Children Act 1989 31(1) 105(6)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In Re B (A Minor) (Sexual Abuse: Expert's Report) Times, 29 March 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 871
29 Mar 2000
CA

Children
In sexual abuse case brought in the family courts it was vital that instructions to an expert to prepare a report should be impartial, and given jointly by the parties. Such instructions should not allow the expert to make any forensic contribution to any opending litigation. There must be no confusion between the roles of expert to treat and expert to report.
1 Citers


 
C and B (Children ), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 3040
30 Mar 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
T (Children), In Re [2000] EWCA Civ 133; [2000] 2 FLR 192; [2000] 2 FCR 159; [2000] Fam Law 594
18 Apr 2000
CA
Simon Brown, Ward, Sedley LJJ
Children, International
Appeal from order made in international child abduction case.
[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re T (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights); CA 24-Apr-2000 - Times, 24 April 2000
 
L v Finland [2000] ECHR 175; 25651/94; [2000] ECHR 176; [2000] 2 FLR 118; [2000] Fam Law 536; (2001) 31 EHRR 30; [2000] 3 FCR 219; 31 EHRR 30
27 Apr 2000
ECHR
Mr G. Ress
Human Rights, Children
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings
"the consideration of what is in the best interests of the child is of crucial importance."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
K And T v Finland ECHR 2001-VII; [2000] ECHR 173; 25702/94; [2000] ECHR 174
27 Apr 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings
Taking a newly born child straight into care may infringe the right to family life.
1 Citers

[ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 In Re E and Others (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Social Work Practice); FD 10-May-2000 - Times, 10 May 2000
 
In Re J (Minor) (Isle of Man: Adoption) Gazette, 22 June 2000; Times, 07 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000
7 Jun 2000
FD

Adoption, Children, International
Because the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom under the Act, proceedings for an adoption of a child from the Isle of Man were an inter-country adoption, and so had to be commenced in the High Court. There was, however, nothing to prevent the High Court transferring the case to the County Court in appropriate situations. The need arose even though the Act envisaged a child subject to a freeing order being placed with a Manx couple with a view to adoption.
Adoption Act 1976 56

 
In re G (A Child) [2000] EWCA Civ 503; [2001] 1 FCR 97; [2001] 1 FCR 97
20 Jun 2000
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
Children
G had died. It was then discovered that he had suffered serious abuse before his death (though not actually causing it). M, wanting the return of her other child, now appealed from a fact finding judgment which had failed to identify which of them was responsible. Held: "the judge gave an impeccable self-direction. She recognised the convenience of coming to a clear conclusion, but, in conscientiously weighing up the evidence, she came to a conclusion which she appreciated was unpalatable, that the evidence was not sufficient on the balance of probabilities to exclude the mother and positively, on the balance of probabilities, to identify the father.
In my judgment, there is no merit in the question of law and the judge did not err in her self direction or in her application of the standard of proof to the case with which she was dealing."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re V (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re M (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In re L, V, M and H (Children); CA 21-Jun-2000 - Times, 21 June 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] Fam 260; [2000] Fam Law 615; [2000] EWCA Civ 194; [2000] 4 All ER 609; [2000] 2 FCR 404; [2000] Fam Law 603; [2001] 2 WLR 339; [2000] 2 FLR 334

 
 In Re F (Minors) (Care Proceedings): Contact); FD 22-Jun-2000 - Times, 22 June 2000
 
Nuutinen v Finland 32842/96; (2000) 34 EHRR 358; [2000] ECHR 354; [2000] ECHR 355
27 Jun 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) Times, 18 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000; [2000] 3 FCR 721
18 Jul 2000
CA

Children, Local Government
A guardian ad litem, representing one child, was entitled to see a report, prepared by the child protection committee of the local authority, which related to the death of the child's sibling. Such a report constituted a report prepared by the authority whilst exercising a statutory function assigned to it. No question of policy could limit the obligation to disclose such a report. The child had an overwhelming interest on the report. Questions about the disclosure of particularly sensitive material were issues of practice not principle. Section 42 should be given its literal meaning.
Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 - Children Act 1989 42(1)(b)
1 Citers


 
In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Teenage Mother) Times, 19 July 2000
19 Jul 2000
FD

Children, Adoption
There is no general rule that the baby of a young teenage mother should be adopted. Nevertheless it would not be right to concentrate on the interests of the mother as a child. The unborn child must be given equal consideration, and a twin-track approach to planning must be used. Where appropriate suitable adopters could be identified before the child's birth, although this must not pre-empt the decision of the court. An interim placement of the child should be determined on evidence as a matter of urgency after the child's birth.


 
 Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation; FD 25-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWHC Fam 2; [2000] EWHC 3 (Fam); [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2000] 3 FCR 509; [2000] Fam Law 886; [2001] 2 WLR 253; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197; FD/00P10636
 
Dorney-Kingdom v Dorney-Kingdom Times, 25 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000
25 Jul 2000
CA

Children, Family, Child Support
A court may not make an original order for child maintenance, save by consent. The practice of disguising such an order, as part of spousal maintenance, pending a determination by the Child Support Agency, was only legitimate where there was included a real element of spousal maintenance. Simply calling child maintenance spousal maintenance is not correct or legitimate.
Child Support Act 1991 8(5)


 
 Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council; CA 26-Jul-2000 - Times, 03 October 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 228; [2000] IRLR 703; (2001) 3 LGLR 14; [2000] Fam Law 883; [2001] 1 FCR 455; [2001] 1 FLR 280
 
In re H (A Child) [2000] EWCA Civ 3011
31 Jul 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly Times, 09 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197
9 Aug 2000
FD
Munby J
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
The interview for television of a child ward of court who had gone to live with members of a religious sect was not necessarily a contempt of court. There are three groups of ways in which a ward's interests can be protected. First where the wardship would lead to no special action, and the ward would take action himself, where the jurisdiction was exercisable, but after a balancing exercise in which the child's interests were not paramount, and where a major decision was to be made in which case the jurisdiction was exercisable. Provided the media kept within such rules as did apply, they should not need to apply to the court, and nor would they be in contempt. "in relation to the media the exercise of the court's inherent parens patriae or wardship jurisdiction is divided into three parts: the first part, in which the jurisdiction is not exercisable at all and the child is left to whatever remedies against the media the law would give an adult in comparable circumstances; a second part in which the jurisdiction is exercisable, but in circumstances where, because the court is exercising only its "protective" jurisdiction, the child's interests are not paramount and where a so-called balancing exercise has to be performed; and the third part, in which, because the court is exercising its "custodial" jurisdiction, the child's interests are paramount. Well known examples of cases falling into the first category, where no injunction can be granted, are In re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1975] Fam 47; R v Central Television plc [1994] Fam 192 and M v British Broadcasting Corpn [1997] 1 FLR 51."
1 Citers


 
A (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 404
12 Sep 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Legal Aid Board, Ex Parte W and Others (Minors) Times, 19 September 2000; Gazette, 05 October 2000
19 Sep 2000
CA

Children, Legal Aid
When considering the granting of legal aid for a solicitor to be appointed to represent a child's guardian ad litem in proceedings under section 34, the Board had failed to acknowledge the requirement under the Rules placed upon a guardian to be represented. There was no choice about the appointment. The power to reject an application could only be exercised where it was considered unreasonable to grant legal aid. The failure to consider the obligation was a fundamental flaw in the decision, which was vitiated.
Children Act 1989 34 - Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991/1247) 4.11 4.12 - Legal Aid Act 1974

 
Glaser v The United Kingdom 32346/96; (2001) 33 EHRR I; [2001] 1 FLR 153; [2000] ECHR 419; [2000] 3 FCR 193; 2001 Fam LR 103; [2000] Fam Law 880
19 Sep 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
"The essential object of Article 8 is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities. There may however be positive obligations inherent in an effective "respect" for family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for family life even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals' rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific steps. In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the state's margin of appreciation." Speed was essential in determining disputes about children.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
H (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 403
26 Sep 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
S (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 413
27 Sep 2000
CA

Children
Residence
[ Bailii ]
 
W Borough Council v D, K v D J, K v A, K (a Minor) v David Delahunty (Guardian Ad Litem) [2000] EWCA Civ 255
29 Sep 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
S (Child) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2000] EWCA Civ 410
2 Oct 2000
CA

Children
Contact with child in care
[ Bailii ]
 
E (a Child), In the Matter of [2000] NIEHC 42
6 Oct 2000
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re D (Child: Threshold Criteria); CA 13-Oct-2000 - Times, 13 October 2000
 
Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Holmes and Others Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
FD

Children, Human Rights, Media
A newspaper sought to investigate the policies adopted by the council as regards inter-racial fostering. The council relied upon the Act to justify restrictions it sought to be imposed on the reporting. The case was not affected by the Children Act, and therefore no balancing exercise was required. The policy restricting publication was to be looked at under the convention, and limited only to the extent required. The injunction would be relaxed to permit publication provided the case was appropriately anonymised, and social workers with no opportunity to answer criticism were not named.
Children Act 1989 1(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 12


 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Lally; QBD 26-Oct-2000 - Times, 26 October 2000

 
 In Re S (A Child) (Ex Parte Orders); CA 2-Nov-2000 - Times, 02 November 2000
 
A (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 401
3 Nov 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re D v D (Children) (Shared Residence Orders) Times, 08 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 3009; [2001] 1 FLR 495; [2001] 1 FCR 147; [2001] Fam Law 183
20 Nov 2000
CA
Hale LJ, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P
Children
Three children, after their parents' separation, spent substantial amounts of time with each, despite the acrimony between their parents and frequent court applications. The father argued that without a shared residence order he was treated as a second-class parent by authorities with whom he had to deal over matters relating to the children. The judge made a shared residence order, and the mother appealed. Held. Earlier decisions restricting the circumstances where shared residence orders should be made may be incorrect. In this case, the children had continuing staying contact with their father. There remained many and repeated points of dispute about administering the contact, but it was clear that the mother accepted in principle that the children would be staying with their father for some of the time. In such circumstances, shared residence might well be in the interests of the children. It was not necessary to establish exceptional circumstances, or any positive benefit for the child provided it could be shown to be in the children's best interests.
Children Act 1989 8(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mario Montana Times, 05 December 2000; Gazette, 11 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 421
23 Nov 2000
Admn

Administrative, Human Rights, Discrimination, Children
The distinction made in British nationality law, between the relationships of mother and child, and that of father and child, when the parents were not married, was not a breach of the human right to a family life. The claimant suggested that the rule was discriminatory both as sex discrimination, and as discrimination against the child as illegitimate. In this case the refusal of British citizenship had not in fact interfered with the child's family relationships, and there was no previous case in which such a distinction had been found. The cases for citizenship under the two sections were quite different, and were not proper comparators.
British Nationality Act 1981 2 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Craigavon and Banbridge Community Health and Social Services Trust v JFK, In the Matter of [2000] NIFam 56
27 Nov 2000
FdNI

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
R (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 406
27 Nov 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re G (A Child) [2000] EWCA Civ 504; [2001] 1 FLR 872; [2001] 1 FCR 165
29 Nov 2000
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Laws, Hale LJJ
Children

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re K (A Child) (Secure Accommodation Order: Right to Liberty) Times, 29 November 2000; Gazette, 15 December 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 526
29 Nov 2000
CA

Education, Children, Human Rights
An order providing that a child should stay in secure accommodation, was an order which restricted the child's liberty. A justification for such a restriction had to be brought within the exceptions listed in the article. Detention for educational supervision was permitted, and such supervision was not restricted to education in the sense of tuition in a school setting, but could be extended to include education in the more general sense of the exercise of parental rights by an authority in whose care the child was. Such an order did not therefore conflict with the child's article 5 right.
European Convention on Human Rights A5 - Children Act 1989 25 - Children Secure Accomodation Regulations 1991 (1991 No 1505)

 
Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham ex parte Makila Ebuki and Brandon Ebuki (By His Mother and Litigation Friend Makila Ebuki) [2000] EWHC Admin 426
5 Dec 2000
Admn
Jack Beatson Q.C.
Children
The applicants sought judicial review of the Council's decision to evict her and her children from emergency accommodation for the homeless without further provision, saying the council failed its duty to her child under section 17. Held: The council had conducted a review as required. However it was defective, and the council had been ineffective in dealing with the application, and failed properly to communicate its result, and the review was quashed, with an accompanying responsibility on the council to renew the assessment.
Children Act 1989 17
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
D (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 402
14 Dec 2000
CA

Children
Residence
[ Bailii ]
 
TB v JB (Formerly J H) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2000] EWCA Civ 337; [2001] 2 FLR 515; [2001] 2 FCR 497; [2001] Fam Law 576
19 Dec 2000
CA
Laws, Hale, Arden LJJ
Children
The father appealed against rejection of his claim for the return of his three children to New Zealand.
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B (a Child) (By Her Guardian Ad Litem, the Official Solicitor) v Regina, P W County Council v SB [2000] EWCA Civ 341
20 Dec 2000
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.