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 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. . .

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. . .

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 . .

In re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding); FC 19 Mar 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 26
Links: Bailiii
Coram: Pauffley J
The mother and her partner had accused many people of the satanic ritual abuse of her children. The children had since retracted their complaints.
Held: The complaints by the children had been prompted and manufactured by the mother’s partner and the mother. None of the allegations, after substantial and careful investigation, were proved true. The mother and her partner had caused immense harm to both the children and the many people they had falsely accused, and had made that damage continuing by the publication, in probable contempt of court, of many details about the case. Those persisting with the allegations were acting either maliciously or foolishly.
Pauffley J summarised her conclusions: ‘Neither child has been sexually abused by any of the following – RD, teachers at CP School H. the parents of students at that school, the priest at the adjacent church, teachers at any of the H or H schools, members of the Metropolitan Police, social workers employed by the London Borough of X, officers of Cafcass or anyone else mentioned by Ms D or Mr C.
The children’s half brother, his father and stepmother – X and Y D – are likewise exonerated of any illicit or abusive acts involving the children.
There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.
All of the material promulgated by Ms Draper now published on the internet is nothing other than utter nonsense.
The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr C in collaboration with Ms D.
Both children were assaulted by Mr C by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.
The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – In In Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838, [2004] Fam Law 709)
    Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said that in abuse cases, evidence: ‘cannot be evaluated in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an . .
  • Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 2 FLR 141, HL, [2009] 1 AC 11, [2008] 3 WLR 1, [2008] Fam Law 837, [2008] 2 FCR 339, [2008] Fam Law 619, [2008] 4 All ER 1)
    There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
  • Cited – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 12, SC, UKSC 2010/0031, SC Summ, Times, [2010] Fam Law 449, [2010] 2 All ER 418, [2010] 1 FLR 1485, [2010] PTSR 775, [2010] 1 FCR 615, [2010] 1 WLR 701, Bailii Summary)
    The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .

Re C (Children Appeal); FC 30 May 2014

References: [2014] EWFC B163
Links: Bailii
Coram: Eaglestone HHJ
Application by the father for permission to appeal as to whether care orders in respect of the children should be discharged with the result the children could return to live with their father; whether the section 34(4) order should be discharged so that the children could have direct contact with their father; and thirdly, whether upon the Guardian’s application an order under section 91(14) should be made by the court of its own motion so that the father may not issue any further applications under the Children Act without leave of the court.
Statutes: Children Act 1989

In re P, Q, R and S (Children); FC 5 Dec 2014

References: [2014] EWFC B166
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lynch HHJ
Applications for adoptive placment.
Held: ‘P, Q, R and S have suffered and are likely to suffer significant harm, which harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to them if the order was not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. The court is satisfied of this because it finds that the children have experienced family life shaped by inadequate parenting, such that their physical and emotional needs including their need for stability and consistency have been neglected, and as a result the children have suffered. In particular:
1. The parents’ relationship is volatile and chaotic. It involves serious allegation and counter allegation followed by withdrawal and reconciliation.
2. The children have frequently been present and involved in the situation when one parent makes allegations against the other and these are often in aggressive terms.
3. The children have experienced instability at home as a result of parental conflict, home moves, change of carer and separation from siblings.
4. The parents’ relationships with professionals are volatile and chaotic. The parents’ refusal to work with professionals has impacted negatively upon the children’s welfare.
5. The children have lived with parents whose mental health/emotional stability significantly fluctuates. Their mental health difficulties have impacted upon their ability to meet the needs of their children consistently.
6. All of the above has had a significant and negative impact on the emotional and physical welfare of the children. All the children have had their welfare neglected and have suffered harm whilst in the care of their parents.
7. The parents have shown no acceptance or understanding of the inadequacies in the way they way they have parented their children or the adverse impact this has had and would have in the future on their children. It is therefore likely that if the children return to the care of their parents they will suffer further emotional and physical harm as a result of neglect of their welfare needs.’