Tag: Children

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 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

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

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

A and Another v C and Another: FC 11 Jul 2016

Reasons for making parental orders – children aged 12 and 13

Judges:

Theis DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWFC 42, [2017] 2 FLR 101, [2016] Fam Law 1225

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX SC 1-Apr-2020
A negligent delay in the diagnosis of her cancer left the clamant dependent on paid for surrogacy arrangements. Three issues were raised; could damages to fund surrogacy arrangements using the claimant’s own eggs be recovered? Second, if so, could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.570447

In re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy): FD 9 Dec 2008

The court considered the approval required for an order under the 2002 Act.
Held: Welfare considerations were important but not paramount: ‘Given the permanent nature of the order under s.30, it seems reasonable that the court should adopt the ‘lifelong’ perspective of welfare in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 rather than the ‘minority’ perspective of the Children Act 1989. On the other hand, given that there is a wholly valid public policy justification lying behind s.30 (7), welfare considerations cannot be paramount but, of course, are important’.
Hedley J commented that ‘no specific reason can be ascertained’ for the time limit in section 30(2) of the 1990 Act, and said: ‘Section 30(2) provides for a non-extendable time limit of 6 months from the date of birth for the issuing of the parental order application. This has been complied with in this case, but it is noteworthy that apparently there is no power to extend though no specific reason can be ascertained for that. That may especially cause problems where immigration issues have led to delay.’
Hedley J said: ‘I feel bound to observe that I find this process of authorisation most uncomfortable. What the court is required to do is to balance two competing and potentially irreconcilably conflicting concepts. Parliament is clearly entitled to legislate against commercial surrogacy and is clearly entitled to expect that the courts should implement that policy consideration in its decisions. Yet it is also recognised that as the full rigour of that policy consideration will bear on one wholly unequipped to comprehend it let alone deal with its consequences (ie the child concerned) that rigour must be mitigated by an application of a consideration of that child’s welfare. That approach is both humane and intellectually coherent. The difficulty is that it is almost impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which by the time the case comes to court, the welfare of any child (particularly a foreign child) would not be gravely compromised (at the very least) by a refusal to make an order. Bracewell J’s decision in Re AW (Adoption Application) [1993] 1 FLR 909 is but a vivid illustration of the problem. If public policy is truly to be upheld, it would need to be enforced at a much earlier stage than the final hearing of a section 30 application. In relation to adoption this has been substantially addressed by rules surrounding the bringing of the child into this country and by the provision of the Adoption with a Foreign Element Regulations 2005. The point of admission to this country is in some ways the final opportunity in reality to prevent the effective implementation of a commercial surrogacy agreement. It is, of course, not for the court to suggest how (or even whether) action should be taken. I merely feel constrained to point out the problem.’
Considering section 30(7) of the 1990 Act, Hedley J said: ‘The statute affords no guidance as to the basis, however, of any such approval. It is clearly a policy decision that commercial surrogacy agreements should not be regarded as lawful; equally there is clearly recognition that sometimes there may be reasons to do so. It is difficult to see what reason Parliament might have in mind other than the welfare of the child under consideration. Given the permanent nature of the order under Section 30, it seems reasonable that the court should adopt the ‘lifelong’ perspective of welfare in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 rather than the ‘minority’ perspective of the Children Act 1989. On the other hand, given that there is a wholly valid public policy justification lying behind Section 30(7), welfare considerations cannot be paramount but, of course, are important. That approach accords with that adopted in the previous cases and also accords with the approach adopted towards the authorising of breaches of the adoption legislation. A particularly vivid example of this can be found in the judgment of Bracewell J in Re AW (Adoption Application) [1993] 1FLR 62. There the court was concerned in particular with serious (and indeed dishonest) breaches of Section 29 of the Adoption Act 1976 yet in the final striking of the balance between public policy considerations and the welfare of the child concerned the judge nevertheless made an interim adoption order.
In relation to the public policy issues, the cases in effect suggest (and I agree) that the court poses itself three questions:
was the sum paid disproportionate to reasonable expenses?
were the applicants acting in good faith and without ‘moral taint’ in their dealings with the surrogate mother?
were the applicants’ party to any attempt to defraud the authorities?’

Judges:

Hedley J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam), [2009] 2 WLR 1274, [2009] 2 FCR 312, [2009] 1 FLR 733, [2009] Fam Law 115

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002, Children Act 1989, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 30(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re IJ (A Child) (Foreign Surrogacy Agreement Parental Order) FD 19-Apr-2011
The court gave reasons for making a parental order under the 2008 Act in favour of the applicants where a child had been born under surrogacy arrangements which were lawful in the Ukraine where he was born, but would have been unlawful here because . .
Approved – In re X and Y (Parental Order: Retrospective Authorisation of Payments) FD 6-Dec-2011
An application had been made for parental orders under section 57. The children X and Y had been born in India under surrogacy arrangements involving payments which were lawful in India, but which went beyond what could be paid.
Held: The . .
Cited – D and L (Minors Surrogacy), Re FD 28-Sep-2012
The children had been born in India to a surrogate mother. The biological father and his civil partner sought a parental order. The mother could not be found to give her consent. She had been provided anonymously through a clinic.
Held: The . .
Cited – In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) FD 3-Oct-2014
Extension of Time for Parental Order
The court considered the making of a parental order in respect of a child through surrogacy procedures outside the time limits imposed by the 2008 Act. The child had been born under Indian surrogacy laws. The commissioning parents (now the . .
Cited – Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX SC 1-Apr-2020
A negligent delay in the diagnosis of her cancer left the clamant dependent on paid for surrogacy arrangements. Three issues were raised; could damages to fund surrogacy arrangements using the claimant’s own eggs be recovered? Second, if so, could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Leading Case

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.347369

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

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 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

DM, Regina (on The Application of) v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 21 Jun 2011

The claimant sought judcial review of the defendant’s withdrawal of the provision of transport to and from a leisure facility, and otherwise.

Judges:

Pelling QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2175 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442699

Re LSDC (A Child): FD 24 Apr 2012

Application for registration, recognition and enforcement of a Judgment of the Portuguese Court pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 and consequential orders for stay of proceedings in the UK on the basis that the Portuguese Court has jurisdiction to determine issues in relation to the child.

Judges:

Macur DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 983 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.460529

SH v HH (Jurisdiction to Grant Wardship): CA 8 Jul 2011

The British father, of Afghan origin, travelled back to Afghanistan to marry. His wife, the mother, planned to come to England but had never left Afghanistan when their first child was born. Her subsequent journey (alone) to England may have resulted in her own habitual residence being established in England, but clearly could not affect that of the child, which was understandably conceded by experienced counsel to be in Afghanistan. The request had been made in order to compel the father to bring the child to the jurisdcition. F resisted saying that the child had never been within this jurisdiction it could not be held that he was habitually resident here.
Held: ‘ the appeal should be allowed, the orders of Judge Cliffe should be set aside and the wardship in relation to both the children discharged. The wardship in relation to SH is discharged because there is no jurisdiction over a child who is not and has never been habitually resident or present here. The wardship is discharged in relation to his sister, who is here, because whatever orders are required in her case can more properly be made under the provisions of the Children Act 1989. Once the proceedings in relation to SH are dismissed the father is clearly entitled to the return of his passport and this court will make whatever order or direction is necessary for its release.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Black LJJ, Sir Henry Brooke

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 796, [2012] 1 FLR 23, [2011] Fam Law 1071

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441589

In re Baby X: FD 28 Jan 2010

X’s mother had been arrested on suspicion of cruelty to X who now suffered life threatening respiratory illness and was in need of constant medical care. The local authority now applied for a care order, saying that the mother was the cause of the injury or illness. The father sought to be allowed contact.

Judges:

Ryder J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 28 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440449

Re H (Children): CA 17 Mar 2011

The father sought leave to appeal against an order allowing the mother to relocate to Canada taking the children of the family with her.
Held: The appeal had no prospects of success.

Judges:

Mummery, Hughes, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 529

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439727

SM and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 May 2013

The court was asked as to the impact of section 55 of the 2009 Act on the consideration by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of applications by children, made outside the scope of the Immigration Rules, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 169

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.503471

Daniela Lipkowsky And India Dawn McCormack v Germany: ECHR 18 Jan 2011

Citations:

26755/10, [2011] ECHR 276

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) SC 10-Jun-2011
Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430101

In re TM: FD 12 Dec 2013

Application by an NHS Trust for the consent or approbation of the court to proposed medical treatment of a seven-year-old child. The child was born with multiple medical problems, and as a result, very considerable mental and physical developmental delay. She has received a great deal of help and treatment throughout her life from the hospital of the NHS Trust. There had been a good working relationship between the staff and treating doctors and the parents, and in particular with the mother of the child, with whom she lived. ‘The purpose of these few words is solely to explain why I am imposing temporarily what has just been described as a blanket injunction on any reporting whatsoever – whether in a newspaper, by broadcast, or in any form of web-based communication – of the existence of these proceedings or anything that has taken place in court today. I do so because that is, of course, a very strong and grave restriction on the Convention right of freedom of expression which underpins the democratic rights of us all. These proceedings were listed for hearing in public, and every single word of them today has taken place in public, with journalists present in the court room. I am now delivering this short judgment in public, but this judgment, like everything else that has been said today, will also be the subject of the same temporary blanket restraint.’

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4043 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Children, Media

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.519045

Re A (A Child): FD 21 Mar 2014

A, a thirteen year old girl had been found to be pregnant. Mostyn J said: ‘The application is made to me for declaratory relief. If I determine that A does not have the appropriate capacity to consent to the continuation or termination of this pregnancy, then the application by the Trust is for declarations that it would be in her interests to terminate that pregnancy. On the other hand, if I do determine that she does have the appropriate capacity then the Trust seeks a declaration to that effect so that the position is put beyond doubt and that any later criticisms of the Trust, in taking the steps that they did, can be deflected. ‘

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1445 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.525849

Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 2): ECJ 9 Nov 2010

Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Lis pendens – Action on the merits relating to custody of a child and application for provisional measures relating to the right of custody of the same child

Citations:

C-296/10, [2010] EUECJ C-296/10, ECLI:EU:C:2010:665, [2011] Fam 312, [2011] 3 WLR 1040, [2011] ILPr 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Purrucker v Valles Perez ECJ 20-May-2010
EU (Opinion) Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility Provisional measures Custody. . .
See Also – Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 1) ECJ 15-Jul-2010
ECJ (Judgment) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.426022

G v B: FD 25 Oct 2010

The court was asked whether a CAFCASS report prepared at the order of the court should be disclosed to the court and or to the parties, and whether those involved should be told of any changes to the report made at the request of any person.

Judges:

Sir Nicholas Wall

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2630 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425501

Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute: Interim Care Orders): FD 2003

The mother had persuaded her children of the lie that their father had physically and sexually abused them, and that their paternal grandparents were also a danger to them. She would not allow any contact with them, and disobeyed court orders for contact.
Held: Her conduct was causing the children significant harm. The court invited the local authority to take care proceedings, the outcome of which was the removal of the children from their mother, and residence orders in favour of their father. This was a clear case of parental alienation.

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

[2003] 2 FLR 636, [2003] EWHC Fam 1024

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Father v The Mother, O by Cafcass Legal; In re O (a Child) (Contact: Withdrawal of application) FD 12-Dec-2003
The father sought to withdraw his application for contact, but the court took the opportunity to explain some points relating to contact disputes.
Held: Such disputes engender very deep feelings. Courts must ensure contact with both parents . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – A Father (Mr A) v A Mother (Mrs A); Their Two Children (B And C) FD 4-Feb-2004
After a divorce, the father sought a joint residence order for the two young children. The mother alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour by the father. The court found this allegation clearly untrue. The dispute was bitter and protracted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.188860