Tag: Children

Re C (A Child); FC 29 Sep 2015

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

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

Last Update: 07-Oct-15 Ref: 552792

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

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

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

This case is cited by:

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

Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 552788

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

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

Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 254469

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

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

GW v MW; FC 17 Jun 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q v Q etc; FC 6 Aug 2014

References: [2014] EWFC 31, [2014] WLR(D) 372
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
Three cases raised the issue that in private law proceedings, fathers sought contact with their children despite reasons including convictions for sexual abuse of children. None had been able to secure legal aid, and the court faced them having to conduct such cases in person and without the court having benefit of expert opinion.

Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs; 18 May 2001

References: [2001] FCA 568
Links: Austlii
Coram: Branson, North and Stone JJ
(Federal Court of Australia) The law required the Tribunal, in determining whether to confirm the refusal to grant a visa to Mr Wan, to treat the best interests of any child affected by its decision as a primary consideration: ‘[The Tribunal] was required to identify what the best interests of Mr Wan’s children required with respect to the exercise of its discretion and then to assess whether the strength of any other consideration, or the cumulative effect of other considerations, outweighed the consideration of the best interests of the children understood as a primary consideration.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – ZH (Tanzania) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC ([2011] 1 FCR 221, [2011] 2 WLR 148, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 4, Bailii Summ, UKSC 2010/0002, SC, SC Summary, [2011] Fam Law 468, [2011] 2 AC 166)
    The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .

Rice v Miller; 10 Sep 1993

References: [1993] FamCA 87, (1993) FLC 92-415
Links: Austlii
Coram: Ellis, Lindemayer, Bell JJ
(Family Court of Australia) Whilst there is a legislative presumption regarding equal shared parental responsibility between parents there is no presumption in favour of parents (jointly or severally) as regards the placement of children nor a presumption in favour of a parent as regards their relationship with a child (such as by spending time or communicating with them) and whether judiciable controversy arises between parents or as regards a parent and a non-parent.
This case cites:

  • Approved – Hodak -v- Newman and Hodak ((1993) 17 Fam LR 1, [1993] FamCA 83, (1993) FLC 92-421, Austlii)
    (Family Court of Australia) Lindenburgh J said: ‘I am of the opinion that the fact of parenthood is to be regarded as an important and significant factor in considering which proposals better advance the welfare of the child. Such fact does not, . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL (Bailii, [2006] UKHL 43, Times 27-Jul-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2305, [2006] 1 AC 576, [2006] 1 FLR 601)
    The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
  • Cited – Re D (A Child) CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 315)
    F appealed against the removal of his parental responsibility for his son. M and F were not married, but F had been named on the birth certificate. He had later been convicted of sexual assaults against two daughters of M by an earlier relationship. . .

Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte K and Another; 1 Nov 1989

References: [1990] 1 FLR 330
Coram: Watkins LJ and Waite J
Application was made for the disclosure of a local authorities social worker records, during the course of care proceedings after allegations of secual abuse had been made against the parents.
Held: The court must look to the interests of the child: ‘as part and parcel of its general welfare, not only in having its own voice sympathetically heard and its own needs sensitively considered but also in ensuring that its parents are given every proper opportunity of having the evidence fairly tested and preparing themselves in advance to meet the grave charges against them.’ and ‘Local authorities therefore have a high duty in law, not only on grounds of general fairness but also in the direct interest of a child whose welfare they serve, to be open in the disclosure of all relevant material affecting that child in their possession or power (excluding documents protected on established grounds of public immunity) which may be of assistance to the natural parent or parents in rebutting charges against one or both of them of in any way ill-treating the child.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Durham County Council -v- Dunn CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1654)
    The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .

Crowhurst And Mary His Wife v Laverack; 20 Nov 1852

References: [1852] EngR 1029, (1852) 8 Exch 208, (1852) 155 ER 1322
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Baron Parke
The father and mother of an illegitimate child entered into an agreement for the maintenance of the child. He was to contribute on the basis that she would otherwise care for the child. The mother later married, and she and the father now sought payment for necessaries for the child.
Held: If the agreement purported to oblige the father to make payments if the mother agreed to support the child, then there was no consideration for the agreement, but if it was her agreement to take sole support of without affiliating the child, there would be good consideration.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ward -v- Byham CA (Bailii, [1956] EWCA Civ 1, [1956] 2 All ER 318, [1956] 1 WLR 496)
    The parties were the parents of an illegitimate daughter. The child lived with the father at first, but the mother requested the child to be returned to her. The father agreed subject to a letter saying: ‘Mildred, I am prepared to let you have Carol . .