Family Law Hub

Children Act 1989

Statute, published: 31/12/1989

Items referring to this

  • Father's appeal against the dismissal of his application for a Child Arrangements Order and an order for contact with his son. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 30/07/2015, free
  • The mother and father had originally agreed not to vaccinate any children of the marriage because of concerns of a link with autism. However following their divorce, and the discrediting of the link by the GMC, the father changed his mind and brought an application seeking the vaccination. The application was allowed. Judgment, 14/10/2013, free
  • Judgment in a claim for damages where the claimant sought to establish a breach of Article 8 rights arising from alleged negligent advice from CAFCASS during contact and residence dispute. Judgment, 13/06/2014, free
  • Appeal of judicial review proceedings concerning funding of an expert report for a child joined as a party to contact and residence applications and where the parents represented themselves. The LSC's decision not to fund the report was declared unlawful. Judgment, 22/05/2014, free
  • Judgment concerning habitual residence of a child, arising from care proceedings, where the mother was a US citizen and the father Moroccan. The judge found that the child's habitual residence was in the UK despite the mother's peripatetic lifestyle and 'sometimes disillusioned statements to the contrary'. Judgment, 20/03/2015, free
  • Mother applied for orders including a child arrangements order (that the children live with her and that there is no contact ordered with Father), a specific issue order (that the children are to be known by different names), a prohibited steps order and a s91 (14) order (restricting Father from making further applications to the court). Judgment, 28/07/2016, free
  • Judgment, 10/03/2013, free
  • A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • Appeal by mother against interim contact order in favour of father. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 19/05/2013, free
  • Appeals arising from Schedule 1 claims concerning correction of a previous judgment in the proceedings and whether the father should not be penalised for failing to complete an incorrect version of Form E as directed. Appeals dimissed. Judgment, 27/06/2014, free
  • Re-hearing of father's application for contact in long-running proceedings concerning 14 year old child. Judgment, 26/06/2015, free
  • Appeal by father seeking to re-start contact but where both the child and mother "have significant psychological and/or emotional vulnerabilities connected with the very issue of contact". Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 14/09/2015, free
  • Application for a child arrangements order by the ex-partner of the child's non-biological mother. Application refused. Judgment, 22/06/2015, free
  • Application by the mother, which was opposed by the child's birth father, for permission to permanently locate with the child to the USA. The application was granted. Judgment, 02/12/2016, free
  • After several breaches of court orders and a failure by the father, and then the mother, to attend court, the judge ruled that the wishes of the 2 children, who had been taken to Iraq by the father, should be ascertained in advance of a further hearing. Judgment, 17/05/2017, free
  • Child arrangements application by biological father in order to secure his status in relation to the child under UK law, as he did not have parental responsibility, not being on the child's birth certificate. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Judgment following a fact finding hearing in private law proceedings which concerned contact between one of the children and the father. Judgment, 11/07/2014, free
  • Mother's appeal against findings made in a judgment on cross-allegations of domestic abuse arising in proceedings for a child arrangements order under s.8 of the Children Act. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 25/10/2018, free
  • Following Mrs Justice Parker's order that 4 children be returned to England from Pakistan and F's acceptance that he would comply, 3 of the children did return with F but contact with M was extremely strained. Mrs Justice Parker reluctantly made an immediate ICO because the children were likely to be subjected to increasing emotional pressure and continuing significant harm if they stayed with their father. Judgment, 19/11/2013, free
  • The issue here was whether the UK court had jurisdiction to entertain a s.8 application in respect of a child. The court held that, since the provisions of Brussels II Revised applied to the mother's application for the s.8 order, the court was not entitled to then go on to consider issues of residual jurisdiction as provided by s.2(1)(b) and 2A of the Family Law Act 1986. Judgment, 19/01/2017, free
  • Judgment deciding whether proceedings concerning contact and residence should be transferred to Poland, where the mother and child now live, under Art 15 of Brussels II Revised. Judgment, 09/12/2014, free
  • Mother's application to seek i) a residence order in respect of her 4 year old son; (ii) an order permitting her to change both his forenames and family name; and (iii) an order revoking his father's parental responsibility. Application granted in each respect. Judgment, 28/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 30/12/2012, free
  • Mother's application to take the child to India for a holiday was refused as the judge concluded that the risk of the mother not bringing him back to the UK outweighed the benefit to the child. The judge was also highly critical of the Legal Aid Agency who had refused the mother's application for prior authority to incur the fees of an expert, saying that "the facts of this present case strongly suggest that, administratively, the LAA is disorganised". Judgment, 05/08/2014, free
  • Application by father to relocate a child to Algeria and to stay proceedings in England under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Application refused. Judgment, 22/10/2015, free
  • Judgment, 18/02/2013, free
  • A case in which the mother of 2 children was disputing that her ex-partner, who was a lesbian, was the childrens' parent. The issue in this case was whether the steps taken by the parties and by the licensed fertility clinic, which was responsible for assisting the reproduction, were effective to grant the ex-partner's status as legal 'parent'. Judgment, 26/05/2013, free
  • Costs hearing which ruled that the W should pay the H 50% of his costs relating to his successful application that a consent order should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the W. Judgment, 11/10/2016, free
  • Appeal by father against an order declaring that the children were habitually resident in Canada and that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the application by the children's father for a child arrangements order and prohibited steps order under the Children Act 1989 as amended, and further discharged an earlier prohibited steps order under which the mother had been prohibited from removing the children from England and Wales. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 09/03/2018, free
  • A return order was made such that the child, who had been abducted from Spain to live in the UK, was returned to Spain to live with his father. Judgment, 07/11/2018, free
  • Mother was ordered to bring the child back to Kent from Northern Ireland so that the father, whom she alleged had abused their daughter, could have contact. Judgment, 21/03/2017, free
  • Judgment, 30/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 06/02/2013, free
  • Case involving a supervision and restraining order imposed on F who had stabbed his daughter. Judgment, 07/05/2013, free
  • Judgment, 15/05/2012, free
  • Case note, 12/07/2012, free
  • Judgment setting out CoA's reasons in an appeal involving s91(14) orders and contact. Black LJ emphasises that no question of principle is involved. Judgment, 09/12/2014, free
  • Appeal by father against order allowing mother to take children to Iraq for four weeks. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 04/08/2017, free
  • An order was made allowing the hospital to administer a form of treatment which involved the child receiving blood products, despite the absence of the consent of the parents who were Jehovah's Witnesses. Judgment, 22/11/2016, free
  • Appeal against a decision that the child was not habitually resident in the UK at the time Children Act proceedings were started because she had lost her habitual residence in this country upon her departure with the respondent for Pakistan, albeit that, in the judge's view, she had probably not yet acquired a habitual residence in Pakistan. The judge also declined to exercise the inherent jurisdiction saying that the facts of the present case did not justify such a course. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • Judgment by the President in child abduction case raising 2 points of general importance: 1) what powers the court has to compel third parties to secure return of an abducted child where they do not have parental responsibility or control over the child and; 2) the role, powers and proper basis for making orders concerning non-subject children in such proceedings Judgment, 20/06/2014, free
  • Father was seeking a residence order for the child in a case where the mother had alienated her from the father. An order that the child lives with the father was made. Judgment, 10/05/2017, free
  • Father sought to challenge an order permitting the mother of his two children to re-locate from England and Wales in order to take up permanent residence with her new husband in Abu Dhabi. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Judgment concerning, among other things, the mother's application to be able to rename her children without reference to the father, who lives in Iran, and to restrict the father's parental responsibility. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • In brief: Dealing with cross-applications (the mother’s (“M”) to be allowed to take the child on holiday to Hague and non-Hague countries and the father’s (“F”) for a shared care arrangement), the court ordered a shared care arrangement (although this was not 50:50) reflecting a refinement on the current arrangements and allowed M to take the child on holiday subject to appropriate safeguards which applied to both parents. Judgment, 10/01/2018, free
  • Application for maintenance pending suit. W seeking not less that £270k pa and the H offering £202k. Moylan J settles for the latter partly because the wife's claims did not arise from need. Judgment, 11/02/2015, free
  • Judgment, 15/01/2013, free
  • Parties who were in contempt of court for failing to disclose the whereabouts of the M and child in this widely publicised child abduction case were released from custody after the M's employer contacted the court with her contact details. Judgment, 13/11/2013, free
  • In brief: A mother’s (“M”) unsuccessful appeal against a decision transferring the residence of the six-year old child to the father (“F”) as a result of M not supporting contact between F and C. Judgment, 28/03/2018, free
  • Mother applied to have contact arrangements overturned after making allegations that the father and paternal grandfather had abused the children while they were visiting them in Sweden. Father cross-applied to have the children live with him in Sweden. The court found that the mother had alienated the children against the father and that a s37 report would be prepared by the LA with a view to the children being placed in foster care before a possible relocation to Sweden. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Hague wrongful retention case brought by a mother living in Spain against a father living in England. Judgment, 18/03/2016, free
  • Circumstances when an anonymity order should be granted in child support decisions Judgment, 22/03/2017, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2013, free
  • Costs order made against Capita after they failed to provide interpreters in a public law case, leading to the adjournment of the hearing. Judgment, 06/02/2015, free
  • Judgment, 02/12/2012, free
  • Father's application to have direct contact with the child and mother's application to remove the child permanently from the UK. Judgment, 28/07/2017, free
  • In brief: The High Court allowed a mother’s (“M”) appeal against a suspended committal order made following her failure to comply with a child arrangements order. The success was based on the fact that no application to commit M had been made; the only application made and served had been for an enforcement order. The order was incapable of being enforced by committal as it was not endorsed with an effective penal notice. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Mother's application to have Hague proceedings withdrawn. The proceedings had reached a curious position in that the mother, who was seeking the return of the child to the US, sought to abandon her application for an order for return and the father, who was opposing the return, sought, nominally, to resist the withdrawal of an application designed to achieve that end, at least until further substantive welfare orders were made. Judgment, 21/03/2016, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which ordered the children to live in the UK with the father and not in Australia with the mother was dismissed. Judgment, 20/10/2017, free
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • In brief: This case began as a private law dispute where the mother (“M”) was very concerned that the father (“F”) would abduct the child. Subsequently (and it is not clear what led to this), the local authority (“LA”) obtained an interim care order and removed the child. The judgment concerns a number of applications (brought by M) for declarations pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 that ss 2, 8, 38, 50, and 97 CA 1989 and the whole of the Child Abduction Act 1984 were incompatible with the ECHR. The fundamental point M made was that the statute was not strong or effective enough. Surprisingly, the High Court did not take the opportunity offered to them of overturning huge chunks of statute. Judgment, 26/04/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which refused permission for her to have staying contact with her daughter in Florida for fear of her not returning the child to the UK. The appeal was allowed, and a package of protective measures was also put in place. Judgment, 14/12/2015, free
  • An unusual application brought by a mother to terminate a father’s parental responsibility and father’s cross application for a specific issue order that mother supply him with reports of their child’s progress. Judgment, 19/05/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against a UK decision that allowed an appeal by the child's mother against the recognition and enforcement of an order made by the Romanian Court of Appeal in Bucharest. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/01/2016, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning lack of legal aid & representation for a couple who have learning disabilities where the local authority was seeking to adopt their child outside the wider family. Judgment, 08/01/2015, free
  • In brief: A father (“F”) successfully opposed the lifting of a prohibited steps order preventing the mother (“M”) from leaving the jurisdiction with the child. M had already been refused permission to leave permanently and relocate to Japan (her country of origin) with the child but a PSO preventing her from going on holiday to Japan had been lifted. F successfully argued that the trial judge had failed to analyse the difficulties which may arise when seeking to enforce orders in Japan and a PSO for two years was substituted. Judgment, 02/08/2018, free
  • Application by the F to stay a judge's order that the child lives with the M, in circumstances where the local authority's psychiatric assessment of the M was said not to be as comprehensive as it should be. Application granted. Judgment, 11/10/2013, free
  • Another case following Q v Q where the parents did not qualify for legal aid but lacked the financial resources to pay for legal representation in circumstances where the LA was looking to place the child for adoption. Judgment, 03/11/2014, free
  • The father was seeking a child arrangements order, a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order. He subsequently issued an application for a return order. The purpose of this hearing was to determine a preliminary issue concerning the jurisdiction of the English court to adjudicate upon the father's applications, that issue hinging on the court's determination of whether the child was habitually resident in England. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • Within private law proceedings, Cafcass raised the question of conducting safeguarding checks on the children’s step-father (a non-party); he refused to voluntarily submit to this and Cafcass applied to the court for an appropriate order. Holding that in this case it was wholly proportionate to conduct safeguarding checks on the step-father, Mr Justice Bodey sets out useful guidance in how to handle safeguarding checks on non-party family members Judgment, 14/07/2014, free
  • Hague proceedings were withdrawn after the parties were able to agree the terms of a consent order, such that there was no utility in continuing with the Hague proceedings. Judgment, 10/03/2016, free
  • Father's appeal against an order that contact with his children should be supervised and an against an order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989. He also challenged an order that the recorder made as to payment of the costs of an independent social worker who was engaged to supervise his contact visits. Judgment, 12/02/2016, free
  • Judgment, 01/10/2012, free
  • Father was seeking an order that the oral permission hearing pursued by the Appellant mother shall take place in private. The judge ruled that proceedings be held in public but subject to immediate and continuing publicity protections so as to prevent withheld and prohibited information from being disclosed into the public domain without the permission of the court. There should also be anonymisation of the reporting of the identities of the parties and the child and any information likely to lead to the identification of the child. Judgment, 14/08/2014, free
  • The district judge in 2007 was able to take, and did take, a global view of the worldwide assets and income of the father and assessed child maintenance payments pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, at around £4,000 per month. 8 years later however, the father, who lived in Jersey and thus not resident in the UK, asserted his right to make an application to the Child Maintenance Service. He argued that he was employed by a company of a prescribed description registered under the Companies Act 2006 and thus fell within s44 (2A) of the Child Support Act 1991. The effect of this was that the father was only liable to pay around £30 per week under the CMS (he in fact had continued to pay around £1,000 per month). This decision was being appealed by mother but here she was applying for a top-up order. The application was dismissed - the CMS had assessed the father's income at below the £3,000 per week required to allow a top-up order. Judgment, 18/12/2014, free
  • The issue for consideration in this appeal are what remedies are available to the parent whose child is removed from the country of habitual residence pursuant to a return order made on a successful application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention which is subsequently set aside by an appellate court. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • In the light of the judge's assessment of the risk that the children may not be returned to the UK, the lack of sufficient safeguards to ensure that they would be returned, and the dire consequences if they were not returned, the mother's application for permission to take the children to China for a holiday was refused. Judgment, 23/11/2017, free
  • Appeal by a father against the order dismissing the application by the father for an order for contact with the two sons of the parties. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 16/10/2017, free
  • Application by mother for termination of father's parental responsibility and application by the father for a specific issues order requiring the mother to supply annual reports on the child Judgment, 15/04/2013, free
  • Case involving shared residence, contact and non-molestation orders amongst other applications relating to the couple's child. There was also the issue of false evidence which was submitted by the Father, purporting to come from the doctor to whom the child had been referred by the Father several times to gain evidence of ill-treatment by the Mother. Judgment, 23/10/2014, free
  • A public children law case in which the President was dealing with three main issues in relation to the care of a 12 year old boy who, despite being born, and living his whole life, in England, was also a citizen of Slovakia. The issues addressed were Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, Articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the jurisprudence on reporting restriction orders. Judgment, 15/01/2014, free
  • The judge gave permission for the father to remove his 3 daughters permanently to Nigeria following a finding that the mother had made false claims in respect of FGM in an effort to bolster an application for asylum in the United Kingdom. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • Appeal by father against a child arrangements order and s91(14) order. The appeal against the s91(14) order was allowed because the application had only been sprung on the father in cross-examination. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an application under the Children Act 1989 in respect of two children. The father, the applicant, contended that the court had jurisdiction on one of two grounds: (1) that at the date on which proceedings were started the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and that, as a result, this court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of BIIA, or alternatively (2) that the children were wrongfully removed from England and Wales to Latvia at a point when they were habitually resident here, that the father had neither consented to nor acquiesced in their removal, and that as a result this court had jurisdiction under Article 10 of BIIA. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
  • Judgment, 18/11/2011, free
  • Application for a specific issue order under the Children Act concerning schooling for children of a divorced couple where religion is a central issue. Judgment, 05/12/2013, free
  • Applications by mother to temporarily remove the child to Iran and Turkey, and application by father to enforce a Child Arrangements Order. Judgment, 20/05/2015, free
  • Appeal by prospective special guardians against child arrangements order that envisaged that the child would move to live with her father and partner after the expected death of the mother. The appeal was allowed as the judge had erred in thinking that there is a "presumption in law in favour of a natural parent" and the case remitted for case management directions. Judgment, 24/04/2015, free
  • A costs order in the sum of £15,000 was made against the father of the child after he had continually breached court orders. Judgment, 13/10/2017, free
  • The father of the child, whose main carer is a friend of the deceased mother, was seeking to become the child's main carer. Alternatively, he made an application for an order attaching a warning notice to the original Child Arrangements Order so that he can enforce contact as against the carer. Judgment, 29/09/2017, free
  • Both parties were seeking a residence order in respect of their son. They had lived in Qatar with their two children when the M left the F alleging domestic violence. F then took their son to Egypt without M's permission and then on to the UK. The courts in Qatar ruled that both children should reside with M but F had not complied. After a review of the welfare checklist, the court decided that the child should reside with M in Qatar. Judgment, 28/01/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against an order which allowed the mother to permanently relocate to Germany with their daughter. The appeal was allowed: the judge's reliance on the Payne v Payne criteria led her away from carrying out the necessary overall welfare analysis that was needed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • Judgment, 29/10/2012, free
  • Judgment, 11/01/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against various aspects of the judge's order in private law proceedings, including a restriction of the father's parental responsibility. Judgment, 18/11/2014, free
  • Order for indirect contact made in respect of the father of twin boys after his behaviour, which included publication on his blog of various personal details concerning the boys and their mother, was described as severely damaging to the welfare of the children. The judge also allowed the mother to change the boys' surname in an effort to ensure that the boys were not identified in the blog post. Judgment, 06/11/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against an order which allowed the mother, who had previously abducted the child to Israel and made unfounded allegations against the father, direct contact with the child was allowed. Judgment, 20/12/2017, free
  • Nigel Shepherd of Mills & Reeve reviews two recent judgments in which arbitration has been considered in the family law context. Article, 11/02/2013, free
  • Training note, 01/07/2012, members only
  • Husband's appeal against an order which awarded the wife over £4m on the grounds that the judge went beyond an assessment of the wife's needs when making his award, in effect augmenting it by reference to other unspecified factors. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 15/05/2017, free
  • An order for costs in the sum of nearly £10,000 was made against the father in favour of the mother because of his wholly unnecessary challenge to the English court having jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to their children. Judgment, 24/03/2014, free
  • Mother was given permission to remain in the UAE with the child until 2020 and for the child to stay with the father in the UK during the holidays. Judgment, 07/08/2017, free
  • Contact case in which the judge ruled that F should only have telephone contact with the children as FaceTime and Skype were deemed as face to face contact. Judgment, 24/03/2016, free
  • Judgment, 16/12/2012, free
  • The questions that required determination were a) whether Mostyn J was right to stay the Children Act proceedings brought by the mother under Art 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (BIIR) and b) whether he erred in ordering that mother take the child to Italy on or before 18 December 2013. Appeal against the stay was dismissed; reserved judgment as to the return to Italy. Judgment, 23/05/2014, free
  • Appeal by the same sex parents of the child against a child arrangements order which provided for the sperm donor's parents to have contact with the child. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 01/03/2018, free
  • As the title implies, an intractable contact dispute that has been ongoing for nearly 14 years. The F was applying to have a contact order (which only allowed him direct contact with his daughter 3 times a year) to be varied. The order was varied, but the judge also extended an order under s91(14) such that F could not apply, without the permission of the court, for any new orders under s8, or apply to have the current order varied, until his daughter's 16th birthday. Judgment, 01/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 03/02/2013, free
  • Appeal against fact finding where it was submitted that the judge had been unfair to the wife and wife's counsel (who was a witness in this appeal) during the hearing. Appeal allowed, findings set aside and case remitted to the Family Court for further directions Judgment, 29/07/2015, free
  • F's appeal against orders which refused direct contact between him and his children, imposed a s.91(14) order for a period of five years and that F, who was a litigant in person before the court, should pay the mother's costs. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 07/08/2013, free
  • Judgment, 24/02/2012, free
  • Schedule 1 Children Act case where the Heads of Agreement contained a clause restricting the mother, with whom the child lived, from moving from the UK until the child had finished primary education. The HoA was amended to read that the M may not move to another jurisdiction without F's agreement or the permission of the court. Judgment, 27/02/2017, free
  • Child’s welfare is paramount when considering child’s living arrangements post-surrogacy agreement breakdown Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Judgment, 15/10/2012, free
  • Grandmother's application for permission to appeal an order for indirect contact between her and her granddaughter after a previous order for direct contact had failed because the child refused to see her. Application for permission to appeal was granted. Judgment, 13/11/2013, free
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 13/02/2013, free
  • Father's application to appeal an order allowing the mother to take their child to Iran for a holiday. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to be heard by a judge of the High Court sitting in the Family Court. Judgment, 23/07/2014, free
  • In a tweet: Take child's refugee status into account when considering return order to non-Hague Convention country. In brief: The court emphasised that if a child has been granted asylum by the time a return order application within wardship proceedings is heard, the court must give proper consideration to this, even if it is not an absolute bar to a return order being made. Also as the child is a ward of the court, the judge has a duty to ensure that any proposed consent order is in their best interests. Judgment, 12/10/2016, free
  • The mother (“M”) was refused permission to appeal an interim order changing residence of the three children from M to the father (“F”) and paternal grandmother. The judge, thanks to judicial continuity, had been entitled to draw on the evidence which had unfolded at previous hearings and the interventionist step had been proportionate to the need to safeguard the children’s welfare on an interim basis. Judgment, 05/06/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against a decision to 1)| make no order in relation to contact; 2) decline to enforce an order for indirect contact; and 3) confirm the making of a one-year order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 01/12/2015, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order refusing her to relocate to New York with the 2 children (one of which by the date of this judgment was 16 and the 'no order' principle, that the court should not have been making or continuing orders about young persons over 16 other than in exceptional circumstances, applied). The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 18/12/2015, free
  • The father was in prison for setting fire to the family home. The issue before the Court was whether the limitations which the parties had agreed should be imposed on the exercise of the father's parental responsibility should include a prohibition on the father receiving an annual report from the children's school. The Court prohibited him from receiving the information because there was an appreciable risk that the provision of information to the father from the children's schools would result in the inadvertent disclosure to the father of the family's whereabouts. Judgment, 18/09/2015, free
  • Applications by the father of a child, who was involved in private law proceedings, for committal orders against two members of the Cafcass team and the mother's solicitor for what he perceived to be their respective failings and breaches of court orders. Applications refused. Judgment, 21/08/2015, free
  • Application for costs by a solicitor, in a personal capacity, arising from committal applications against her and Cafcass officers involved in private law children proceedings. The applicant was awarded costs on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 29/07/2015, free
  • Applications by two men (who were in a committed relationship and where one of them was the biological father of the child who had been born as the result of artificial or assisted conception), for parental responsibility and for residence and contact; and cross-applications by the mother for residence and contact. The judge decided that the two men should have PR for the child. Judgment, 05/05/2015, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free
  • F's application for direct contact with his 2 children had been refused. In this judgment, the judge gives permission to appeal - the children were under the false impression that certain allegations against F were true which led to them refusing to have contact with him. The judge ruled that "given the fact that this is likely to be the first case after Re A which considers what a court should do in circumstances where Article 8 is engaged and allegedly breached, I would direct that the full court should be three Lady or Lords Justices, one of whom must be a family Lord or Lady Justice and preferably two of the three should be." Judgment, 19/01/2015, free
  • Appeal by father against order refusing direct contact and imposing a s91(14) order. Appeal dismissed. Black LJ, giving the lead judgment notes, at [61] that "Sometimes, family cases present problems that regrettably the courts cannot solve despite all their endeavours and this is one such case." Judgment, 23/04/2015, free
  • Application by the Father for a wasted costs order against the Local Authority which had been directed by the Court to prepare a report in the proceedings pursuant to section 37 of the Children Act 1989. Judgment, 11/07/2013, free
  • Judgment, 31/07/2012, free
  • Case note, 07/08/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 22/06/2012, free
  • Case note, 04/02/2009, members only
  • The Court of Appeal upheld an order that direct contact between the father (“F”) and child was not in the child’s best interests. The dispute had been ongoing for eight years, since the child was a baby and had regularly been in court before the same judge. The order had been properly considered and made. Judgment, 31/03/2017, free
  • The majority held that the child, who had been taken to Pakistan, had not lost her habitual residence and therefore the appellant's application under the 1989 Act can and should proceed to substantive determination by the High Court. Judgment, 03/02/2016, free
  • Training notes to accompany Petra Teacher's webcast Training note, 24/10/2013, members only
  • Judgment, 02/12/2012, free
  • A case heard by the President, Munby J, who granted a reporting restriction order, contra mundum, to prevent the publication of details of a child who was subject to care proceedings. The order prevented the naming, but not publication of images, of the child, nor did it prevent the naming of the social workers involved in the case. Judgment, 06/09/2013, free
  • The judge in the High Court found that the father had not consented to the removal of the child from Morocco, which was wrongful, and that he had been habitually resident in Morocco before his removal. He ordered the mother to return the child to Morocco. The mother appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the English courts did not have jurisdiction under the 1996 Convention, or on any other basis, on the facts of this case. In cases where a child was habitually resident in another state, as in this case, jurisdiction only arose in cases of urgency under article 11. This was not such a case because the father could have made an immediate application to the Moroccan court for a return order. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal against this ruling, holding that it was open to the English courts to exercise the article 11 jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal under the 1996 Convention, and it ordered that the case be returned to the High Court for a decision as to whether it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances of this case. Judgment, 25/11/2015, free
  • Judgment, 21/09/2012, free
  • Child arrangements case, which also involved public law proceedings, where the mother was convinced that the 7 year old boy was gender dysphoric. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
  • Follow up to the judgment in J (A Minor) [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam) to consider whether or to what extent that judgment should be placed in the public domain. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 20/02/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against a decision in which no order for contact was made with respect to the eldest child, and only limited provision was made for indirect contact to the youngest child. The appeal was allowed but the judge rules that it was contrary to the welfare interests of either of the children to contemplate a re-hearing. Judgment, 06/02/2018, free
  • Application by a same sex couple for parental orders in respect of twins born to a surrogate mother in the USA. At the end of the judgment, the judge emphasises the need for parental orders to be made promptly in respect of children born as a result of international surrogacy agreements. Judgment, 28/05/2013, free
  • Mother's application for leave to take the child to live with her permanently in France. Application granted. Judgment, 22/06/2015, free
  • In a tweet: Judgment declining jurisdiction in respect of two children habitually resident in Bosnia. In brief: Mr Justice Bodey found that the issues could and should have been raised before the Bosnian court, where it was accepted that the children were habitually resident. The idea that jurisdiction could be established for dealing with a one-off urgent situation (in this case the mother’s application to relocate to Serbia in two days’ time) was undesirable – “one does not dip in and out of jurisdiction”. Judgment, 31/10/2016, free
  • An order was made that the child should live in England in the shared care of both parents after the mother had wrongfully removed him to Hong Kong. Judgment, 16/03/2018, free
  • Case note, 10/03/2011, members only
  • Judgment on costs arising from non-molestation proceedings and involving consideration of ex parte relief under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. Judgment, 17/04/2014, free
  • The child of the parties was born as a result of a 'partial' surrogacy agreement. The father was the biological father of the child but the mother was neither the biological or birth mother. The parties failed to lodge their application for a parental order in time, which was 6 months from the date of birth of the child. They did however have a shared residence order. Their relationship then broke down and they eventually divorced. The problem in this case was that a parental order could now not be made because they did not satisfy s54(3) of the HFEA 2008 (the 6 month time limit point), nor could the couple adopt the child because they were no longer together and did not satisfy s54(4)(a). Mrs. Justice Eleanor King, in making the child a ward of court, endorsing the shared residence order, delegating joint parental responsibility to the parties and prohibiting the surrogate mother from exercising any parental responsibility, said that the facts of this exceptional case 'stand as a valuable cautionary tale of the serious legal and practical difficulties which can arise where men or women, desperate for a child of their own, enter into informal surrogacy arrangements, often in the absence of any counselling or any specialist legal advice'. Judgment, 06/03/2014, free
  • Application by 14 year old girl with terminal cancer that her body be cryo-preserved after death. Mother supported her application, father did not. The court ruled that the mother was best placed to manage this unusual and difficult situation and therefore made orders placing responsibility in her hands and prevented the father from intervening. Judgment, 21/11/2016, free
  • Application for permission to appeal by a father against a child arrangements order and a specific issue order concerning which school a child should attend post-primary. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/04/2017, free
  • This was a case in which the judge did not feel it was appropriate for him to cross-examine the child (who had made allegations against her step father) in a situation where the father was not represented or eligible for legal aid. The judge said instead that the court should arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to cross-examine the child on behalf of the father and that the cost of this should be met by HMCTS. The Lord Chancellor appealed and the appeal was allowed, the court saying that in the present case, which was fairly straightforward, the judge should probably have decided to conduct the questioning himself. The nature of this case was such that there were options available to the judge which would have ensured a fair hearing and vindicated the article 6 and 8 rights of the father and the other children involved. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Appeal against order for costs arising from from private contact and residence proceedings. Judgment, 17/04/2014, free
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal against a leave to remove order. In brief: The father (“F”) sought to appeal a leave to remove order in proceedings where the mother (“M”) had been able to establish that he had acted in an angry, violent or otherwise inappropriate manner towards the child. The trial judge’s approach could not be criticised. It had been welfare-based, full weight had been given to the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with F and F’s proposals had not been ignored. Judgment, 05/10/2016, free
  • A contact case in which the judge refused contact between the children and F because F would not accept the findings of abuse previously made by the judge and whether, and to what extent, he was motivated to change. The application to appeal was allowed because the judge had failed to appreciate that the F was giving limited evidence as he did not want to incriminate himself. This may have entirely coloured the approach to the F's evidence. Judgment, 11/09/2013, free
  • Appeal against orders that removed two children from the care of their mother: one of them to foster care and the other to the father. Orders set aside and the children returned to the mother until a final hearing but with an interim care order in place. Judgment, 03/09/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against a child arrangements order which directed that the children live with the mother and which dismissed the father's application for direct contact with his children providing for there to be only indirect contact for an unspecified period of time in the future. The issue before the court was whether the recorder had, prior to refusing the father's application, failed adequately to consider alternative means by which direct contact could be introduced to the children. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 19/02/2016, free
  • Father was seeking to re-open matters which had been concluded against him after finding new evidence. The President dismissed the applications, saying "There is nothing of substance in any of the new materials, the recently discovered documents, which in any way impinges on the various orders which the father now seeks to challenge. In major part, the arguments he has put before me simply replicate arguments which the court has considered and rejected on previous occasions. Insofar as he is able to rely upon new materials, recently discovered documents, they take him nowhere." Judgment, 23/04/2015, free
  • A pre-nup agreement was signed by the wife against the advice of her solicitors. The court ruled that the pre-nup and the issues of fairness and needs should be taken into account when deciding on the size of the award in favour of the wife. Judgment, 20/04/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against decision to return child to Malta where the High Court judge had met with the child in court and it was submitted that her decision had been improperly influenced by what was gleaned at the meeting. Appeal allowed Judgment, 02/05/2014, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Judgment, 27/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 04/06/2012, free
  • Judgment concerning costs in private law children proceedings. Gloster LJ allows the mother's appeal against a costs order as conduct was not 'unreasonable or reprehensible' and therefore the judge had been wrong in principle to make such an order. Judgment, 05/11/2014, free
  • In the words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson, this is "another example of the painful legal confusion that can arise when children are born as a result of unregulated artificial conception". The present applications arose from a same-sex relationship between Ms L and Ms C. Ms C gave birth to a child after artificial insemination and soon afterwards took the child to Ireland after their relationship broke down. Ms L had not seen the child since and was applying for a residence and contact order, and for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent'. It was held first that the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. Secondly, the court made a declaration that, at the date of the child's removal from England, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between the child and Ms L Judgment, 06/05/2014, free
  • An anticipatory child arrangements order was made in favour of the father, despite the child wishing to return to live with the mother, in circumstances where the child was being held under the Mental Health Act and the mother was bedbound. Judgment, 24/05/2017, free
  • Appeal by mother in private law proceedings against refusal of application for the reopening of findings made by magistrates earlier in the proceedings. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 06/11/2017, free
  • Husband's appeal against the refusal of a stay of the wife's applications under ToLATA in respect of the parties' former matrimonial home, and under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for a school fees order and child maintenance, was dismissed. Judgment, 13/11/2018, free
  • The child had been put up for adoption by the 14 year old mother who asked that she have no contact or involvement with him at all. The child was diagnosed, at 6 months old, with a life shortening illness and so the adoption process could not continue. The London Borough of Brent failed to apply for a care order and instead contacted the mother for agreement as to medical procedures. The court held that the London Borough of Brent and the independent reviewing officer acted incompatibly with the child's Article 8 rights by delaying in allowing him to have access to judicial scrutiny, legal advice, and a children's guardian, about his family situation. Judgment, 09/06/2016, free
  • In brief: A successful application by a father (“F”) who opposed the mother (“M”) taking their child to Kurdistan on holiday. The court, having weighed up the benefits of the child having time with her maternal family and the risks to her health and safety, concluded that the risks were too great for the child to enable the court to agree to the trip. Judgment, 15/01/2018, free
  • Judgment, 16/12/2012, free
  • Father was seeking a stay of English wardship proceedings on the basis that Singapore was clearly the more appropriate forum in which to resolve proceedings relating to the future care of his son. The judge ruled that proceedings should continue in the UK saying: "Of principal and magnetic importance in my judgment is the presence of [the child's] parents in this jurisdiction; the fact that each is likely to remain resident in this jurisdiction for at least the next few months; and the significant issue of the mother's ability to re-enter Singapore and conduct proceedings in that jurisdiction in circumstances where she has neither immigration clearance nor the means to support her travel to and from that jurisdiction, nor legal representation in the Singapore courts." Judgment, 27/07/2015, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order that she return the children to the UK from Poland after the English court ruled that they, and not the Polish court, had jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the court saying that the Polish court became and had remained seised of jurisdiction in relation to the children. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • Appeal against 6 findings of fact made about the father in a case concerning contact, where it was submitted that each finding was demonstrable contrary to the weight of the evidence. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 22/04/2013, free
  • Application by father for increased contact after a second s91(14) order expired. Contact was increased to an extent and a further s91(14) order was made to last until July 2016. Judgment, 08/05/2015, free
  • The court cannot order a local authority to supervise contact in private law proceedings. Judgment, 28/07/2017, free
  • Proceedings concerning the legal parentage of a child where Ms M claimed that he had been conceived through sexual intercourse and Mr F, a sperm donor who Ms M met via the internet and who was the biological father of the child, said conception was as a result of artificial insemination. If conception was through sexual intercourse, Mr F would be the legal parent but if it was the result of artificial insemination the question of parentage would depend on the effect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • In brief: Here the father (“F”) was a litigant in person (legal aid having been refused). The mother (“M”) alleged that he had deliberately stranded her in Pakistan, separating her from her children and had subjected her to coercive, controlling behaviour as well as physical and verbal abuse. At the fact-finding hearing in wardship proceedings, the judge directed the children’s guardian, who was legally represented, to cross-examine both parents in order to prevent F from cross-examining M. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Mother's application to change the 2 children's surnames and terminate Father's parental responsibility for them was granted. Judgment, 15/09/2016, free
  • Mother's appeal against a decision that the child should live with the father in Canada was dismissed despite her having attended therapy sessions to modify her behaviour. The Court of Appeal held that when the Family Court is considering reallocating a case to the High Court, the parties should be informed and be permitted to express their views on reallocation and its implications, including the impact on the destination of any appeal. Judgment, 26/04/2018, free
  • Application by former wife for an appointment of a Receiver under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act, an extended civil restraint order pursuant to Rule 4.8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and an extension of a freezing injunction in a case where the former husband had defaulted on child maintenance payments for some years. Judgment, 01/05/2014, free
  • Training note, 05/11/2012, members only
  • W's application for " interim interim" financial provision for herself and for the two children of the marriage, to endure until the next hearing, in February 2014. The H claimed that there had been a non-proceedings divorce in his home country and it was very uncertain that the W here would be entitled, by reason either of res judicata or estoppel, to pursue a third petition and demonstrate that the marriage had not been previously dissolved in the husband's home country. The judge decided that he should only award maintenance pending suit to relieve a real predicament of need, and in this case there was none. Child maintenance awards made but no awards were made for the W. Judgment, 20/01/2014, free
  • Application for cost allowance to fund Schedule 1 Children Act litigation where the child was conceived through AI to lesbian parents but where the respondent biological father also had parental responsibility. The application was granted largely because the complexity of the case was such that the prospect of the applicants acting as litigants in person would "be a gross inequality of arms, and arguably a violation of their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". Judgment, 10/03/2015, free
  • Schedule 1 application where the mother and father both appealed the order. Mother argued, amongst other things, that the order did not meet their daughter's needs. Father argued that the part of the order which ordered him to pay 15% of his bonus was far higher than the equivalent obligation under the CSA (which did not apply as the father lived in France). The mother's appeal was dismissed but the father's appeal was allowed, the judge amending the order to say that he would pay 11.25% of any bonus that exceeded £30,000pa. Judgment, 17/03/2014, free
  • Judgment, 19/11/2012, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Case note, 30/08/2012, members only
  • Appeal by mother against order allowing indirect then supervised contact between the father and his child where there were proven allegations of domestic violence against the father. Appeal allowed, s7 assessment report directed and remitted back for further consideration. Judgment, 04/05/2017, free
  • Three applications brought by the mother and a fourth application brought by the father under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 . Judgment, 11/06/2018, free
  • Judgment, 15/10/2012, free
  • A Hague Convention case where the English mother, who was granted custody of the child with permission for him to live in England with her, was allowed to take the child from Spain to England having made an undertaking to obey any order of the appeal court and return him if required to do so. The Moroccan father's appeal was successful but the mother did not comply with the order. The English court ordered that the child be returned to Spain. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • Mother's application under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of the child to Canada, from where it was alleged the child has been wrongfully retained. The court ruled that the child was not habitually resident in Canada immediately before or at the time of the alleged wrongful retention but was habitually resident in England. In light of this finding the mother's claim failed. Judgment, 24/01/2017, free
  • Application by the NRP against the PWC under Schedule 1 of the Children Act for financial relief for the benefit of the child Judgment, 15/04/2013, free
  • In this case, the judge explains the mechanics of international judicial liaison, and why it has so far failed in this case. The judge made limited orders in the absence of the father but confirmed that the child was habitually resident in the UK and that she should reside with the mother. Judgment, 03/03/2014, free
  • A case involving the residence of a child M, born to two US citizens but who had been living with mother in the UK for 6 years, where proceedings were ongoing in the UK and the USA. Discussion on the Office of International Family Justice and its role in supporting and facilitating cross-border judicial collaboration and direct judicial communication. The High Court determined, contrary to the US ruling, that the English court did have jurisdiction to conduct proceedings in the UK because the child was habitually resident here. Judgment, 18/09/2013, free
  • Appeal against orders which said that the child should continue to live with her father, that the mother have only indirect contact with the child and further that the mother should not be permitted to make any applications for child arrangements orders in respect of the child without the leave of the court for a period of three years except that the mother would be permitted to make an application for a psychological assessment of herself. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 23/11/2017, free
  • Applications by mother, father and uncle seeking a variety of orders relating to residence and contact, and a section 91(14) order. Judgment, 20/05/2015, free
  • Substantive judgment in long-running Sch1 Children Act proceedings involving parties currently living or in prison in Australia. Judgment, 09/07/2014, free
  • Application for declaratory relief where the applicant was arguing that a final consent order was substitution for and supersession of an interim order, including any arrears that may have arisen under it. Judgment, 08/12/2015, members only
  • Appeal against dismissal of step-father's applications to adopt the two children of his Polish partner both of whom had different Polish fathers. In the words of McFarlane LJ the case "presents a timely opportunity to consider how an adoption application brought by a child's step-parent is to be approached." He allowed the appeal and made the orders. Judgment, 15/08/2014, free
  • A statutory charge was not and could not be applicable to the applicant's award of damages in a HRA claim. Judgment, 14/11/2016, free
  • Father's application for a child arrangements order to be changed so that the children could live with him in Sweden was refused. A s91(14) order was also made. Judgment, 29/03/2018, free
  • A case where the mother (“M”) and three children sought various long-term protective injunctions protecting them against the father (“F”) and, in respect of the youngest child, various orders relating to child arrangements and restricting F’s ability to exercise parental responsibility. Most interestingly, the court endorsed an injunction which prevented F holding himself out as being any of them in any electronic mail, social networking or other communications – it is believed to be the first time that such an order has been made. Judgment, 29/07/2014, free
  • Declaratory relief granted to a 16 year old boy who no longer wished his parents to be involved in his life and did not wish them to receive any information about his day-to-day life, nor about any possible medical treatment he might have. Judgment, 10/03/2016, free
  • Judgment, 22/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • Mother's applications for 1) termination of the father's parental responsibility in respect of one the children; 2) permission to change the forename and surnames of both children; 3) the making of a s.91(14) order preventing the father from making any application in respect of the children without permission of the court first being obtained, were all allowed. Judgment, 12/10/2018, free
  • Appeal against orders refusing to grant F parental responsibility, dismissing the F's application for direct contact and making orders for indirect e-mail contact and under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 [CA 1989] that no application may be made by F for an order under the Act for a period of two years. Permission was granted but limited to the parental responsibility and section 91(14) decisions. Both mother and the child through his children’s guardian opposed the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Training notes to accompany Piers Pressdee QC's webinar on Private Children Law, recorded on 15 October 2013 Training note, 24/10/2013, members only
  • Father's application for contact with his son (father having been convicted of a sex offence), mother's application for a prohibited steps order to replace father's undertakings and an application under section 91(14). Judgment, 29/01/2016, free
  • Judgment from the President concerning the representation for LiP's and possible infringement of their article 6 and 8 rights if such representation is not publicly funded. The President said that 'there may be circumstances in which the court can properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by HMCTS. I emphasise that (the provision of interpreters and translators apart) this is an order of last resort. No order of this sort should be made except by or having first consulted a High Court Judge or a Designated Family Judge.' Judgment, 06/08/2014, free
  • Judgment from the President in contact proceedings where the mother was publicly funded and seeking a s91(14) order but the father was unrepresented. The President adjourned the hearing to see whether there should be an intervenor eg MoJ, to consider the issues of funding the proceedings in such circumstances. Judgment, 09/06/2014, free
  • Application by M, opposed by F, to permanently relocate child to Hong Kong. Application dismissed and F's application for a CAO granted largely because of the "mother's inability to recognise in any real way the value to [the child] of having his father in his life and to facilitate and encourage it" especially given the added complication that the child was born of IVF treatment and the father was the natural parent. Judgment, 26/02/2015, free
  • F's appeal against the discharge of a PSO preventing the M from removing the child temporarily to Kenya, a non-Hague Convention state. Appeal allowed and the order allowing the M to remove the child was set aside. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against a judgment which precluded all contact between father and daughter, even indirect, unless the child chose otherwise. The appeal was allowed and the order for no contact was set aside. Judgment, 23/01/2015, free
  • Mother wanted to take the 4 children for a holiday to India, a trip which was opposed by father on the basis that the mother might not return to England. The judge agreed that the consequences of wrongful retention were so great and the safeguarding measures so uncertain that it would not be in the children's best welfare interests for permission to be granted. The mother's application was therefore refused. The judge also expressed dismay over the rejection of the mother's application for legal aid, which meant that the decision had to be made without the benefit of expert evidence. Judgment, 12/03/2014, free
  • The issue which arose for determination in this case was how the costs of an instructed Special Advocate should be funded in family proceedings where closed material held by the police related to a conspiracy to murder the father. The police were ordered to fund the Special Advocate. Judgment, 18/07/2017, free
  • Father's appeal against the dismissal of his application that the child should return to Kent from the North East. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • Judgment, 09/06/2013, free
  • The husband's appeal against the discharge of the Court of Appeal's reporting restriction order was dismissed. Judgment, 18/10/2017, free
  • Proceedings relating to a child born to a Thai mother, who had falsely persuaded her husband that he was the child's father. Judgment, 30/12/2011, free
  • Applicant father was seeking an order for the immediate return of the children to Canada following their removal by their mother from that jurisdiction. An order for their return was made. Judgment, 14/06/2016, free
  • Judgment, 26/06/2012, free
  • Case note, 15/07/2012, free
  • Application by mother, opposed by the father, for permission to remove child to Angola permanently. Application granted but subject to conditions. Judgment, 17/06/2015, free
  • Case note, 11/06/2009, members only
  • Application for an adoption order where the applicant had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with his mother. The adoption order was made. Judgment, 05/03/2015, free
  • Father's appeal against a decision to allow the mother to re-locate the children permanently to Brazil. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/05/2014, free
  • Judgment, 02/07/2012, free
  • Case note, 07/04/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 04/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/12/2012, free
  • Application by the Solicitor General to commit the M to prison for failing to comply with an order to return the children to F on a specific date and time. The President found that matters beyond the M's control had meant that the order could not be complied with, and further that, even if there had been a breach, that breach had not continued because the order did not require her to do anything at any time thereafter, nor did it spell out what was to be done if, for any reason, there had not been compliance by the specified time. Judgment, 22/08/2013, free
  • When finding that a judge had erred in dismissing a father's application for direct contact with his children as there were a number of strong positive features which pointed in favour of the re-establishment of contact, the court highlighted the potential for parental responsibility to be given greater prominence in the resolution of private law disputes regarding the arrangements for the welfare of children. Judgment, 24/07/2012, free
  • In brief: An interim hearing in a case involving a father’s (“F”) application to resume contact with his two children, where domestic abuse formed the backdrop. An emphasis was put on the court’s need not to prematurely stop contact but to investigate the ways in which the family could be supported. Judgment, 09/03/2018, free
  • Father's application for residence of his son who was living in India after the Mother was given permission to relocate with him. Father alleged that this order had been obtained on incorrect information because the Mother was in fact still living in the UK and her family were taking care of the child in India. After considering the welfare checklist, the judge ruled that the child should not return back to this jurisdiction, either to be placed in the Father's care or placed in the Mother's care, but that contact should be promoted between the child and his Father. Judgment, 11/02/2014, free
  • Application by F for a transfer of residence to him from M. The judge described the M as having 'significantly failed these boys', she was 'a very angry and wilful woman' and her hatred of the father was 'almost pathological'. The judge was therefore quite satisfied that it was in the boys' interests and their welfare required the judge to transfer residence to the father. Judgment, 11/02/2014, free
  • An application by the husband for an order granting permission to appeal the order of a Deputy District Judge whereby he stayed the wife's divorce proceedings but excepted from that stay her application for a Legal Services Payment Order. Mr Justice Mostyn gave permission for the appeal and allowed it, saying that by the terms of FPR 2010 rule 9.7(1) an application for an LSPO is for an interim order, just as is an application for an order for maintenance pending suit. Such an application is dependent for its existence and validity on the continuance of the main suit. If the main suit is stayed then all subsidiary ancillary applications for financial relief are stayed, and a fortiori all applications and orders for interim relief, whether for maintenance pending suit or an LSPO. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Both parties were appealing an order which remitted some £37,000 of arrears of child maintenance payments and ordered that the rest be paid over a period of 3 years at the rate of £650 per month. The mother of the child appealed against the remittance; the father appealed against the monthly payment. Both appeals were rejected. The reality of the situation was that the father's financial circumstances were such that it was unlikely he would be able to pay the remitted amount, but the judge was not prepared to reduce the monthly payments. Judgment, 01/05/2014, free
  • The father's consent to the children moving to Kiev with their mother was not unreasonably withheld and an order that the children continue living in London and having contact with the father was made. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Appeal by the child's stepfather against findings of fact in proceedings which were concerned with the welfare arrangements of the child and which involved the determination of various allegations against the stepfather. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 28/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 25/03/2013, free
  • Appeal by the father against the decision to make a child arrangements order in favour of the mother in respect of their son. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • After considering issues in relation to service, an order was made for the child to return to the UK from Spain in the short term so that CAFCASS could make an assessment which would inform the court before a final decision on where the child should live could be made. Judgment, 03/05/2018, free
  • Judgment, 23/01/2013, free
  • Application by M for permission to relocate with the child to her birth place in Moscow. Application granted. Judgment, 23/01/2015, free
  • ToLATA case in which Mr Justice Holman expressed his exasperation at the disproportionate costs that had been incurred relative to the value of the available assets, and the volume of documentation which had been produced in contravention of PD 27A, limiting bundles to 350 pages of A4 unless the court gives permission otherwise. Judgment, 05/12/2014, free
  • Challenge against the determination that the FMH was in joint names of the W and H and not owned by the company, and against an order that the W be paid a lump sum in anticipation of the FMH being sold. Application adjourned. Judgment, 22/04/2013, free
  • Case note, 13/12/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 16/09/2011, free
  • Father was seeking contact despite an earlier fact finding hearing which concluded that he had sexually abused his daughter. An order for no contact, whether direct or indirect, was made as well as a s91(14) order until the child was 16. Judgment, 24/03/2014, free
  • Mother was objecting to the renewal of British passports for her 3 daughters who were wrongfully removed by the father to Australia over 10 years ago and two of whom were still wards of court. Her main concern was that if their British passports were renewed, they may disappear again with the father to a different country. The court extended both the children's wardship and the order restraining renewal of the British passports for a period of one month, that being a sufficient period to enable the mother to apply to the Australian court to prevent the children from leaving Australia. Judgment, 16/03/2017, free
  • Appeal by father and paternal grandparents against orders suspending contact indefinitely and a s91(14) order. Appeal allowed and remitted for further hearing, primarily to consider the proportionality of the orders Judgment, 15/07/2015, free
  • In a tweet: Non-mol order can be made to supplement an injunction made under inherent jurisdiction Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 10/01/2013, free
  • Application by the ex wife for financial remedy 20 years after a maintenance agreement was made but never concluded by an order of the court Judgment, 15/04/2013, free
  • Applicant husband's application for permission to appeal in respect of 3 orders made in relation to the enforcement of a financial remedy order made in 2012. Judgment, 26/05/2016, free
  • Shared residence order discharged and sole residence order made instead in favour of the F after the judge dismissed allegations by the M that the child had been abused whilst in F's care. Judgment, 28/07/2013, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • Appeal by father against orders that were made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. Judgment, 27/10/2015, free
  • A case where F sought to withdraw his consent to an agreement for child maintenance (which had not been signed by the F nor approved by the court), on the basis that an interview was given by the M to a magazine which was in breach of various undertakings that the parties had agreed should be incorporated into the agreement between them. Because there was no court approval there was no question of any formal breach of those undertakings, but the judge approved the agreement and made it a court order so that those undertakings were now binding upon her and enforceable. Judgment, 14/10/2013, free
  • The court held that the wife was domiciled in the UK and that the financial remedy proceedings should proceed in the English court. Judgment, 10/03/2017, free
  • A private law children case in which the issues that arose related to the role and practice of local authorities when involved in allegations of abuse by one parent against another and the care and objectivity that is needed to adequately fulfil their statutory duties when investigating such matters. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
  • In this case which was described as 'a classic example of lawyers rushing off to the High Court at the first sign of complexity' Mr Justice Mostyn has confirmed that enforcement proceedings following the grant of a charging order should be heard in the family court, not the High Court. He concluded that the family court must be recognised as the sole forum for resolution of all family cases save for those specified in the Schedule to the President's Guidance. Judgment, 14/05/2018, free
  • Order forbidding the mother from removing the child, who was the subject of child arrangement proceedings, from the jurisdiction. Mr Justice Mostyn was especially critical of an ex-parte non-molestation order made by a DJ in clear violation of the President's Practice Guidance of 13 October 2014: "Family Court - Duration of Ex Parte (Without Notice) Orders." Judgment, 13/09/2016, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • H was given a suspended prison sentence for failing to provide a fully compliant Form E. Judgment, 11/09/2015, free
  • Judgment, 19/05/2003, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning surrogacy, parental orders, the six month time limit for application from the child's date of birth and whether the court has jurisdiction to make such an order if the application is made after the expiration of 6 months. He concludes it does. Judgment, 03/10/2014, free
  • Application by the birth mother of the child, who was born following a surrogacy arrangement, that she should return to live with her instead of the surrogate parents. Application dismissed. Judgment, 21/11/2016, free
  • At the conclusion of care proceedings, which found that the child had suffered non-accidental injuries, the father admitted that he had inflicted the injuries. The issue in this case was whether or not the court should disclose two previous judgments relating to the case, and therefore potentially identifying the father, to the police. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • Judgment concerning continuing jurisdiction, continuing contact, mirror orders and a s91(14) application where the father had permanently relocated his son to Switzerland. Judgment, 03/07/2014, free
  • Judgment following a hearing to determine whether or not the court should exercise jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 in respect of an application by the mother for retrospective leave to remove the children temporarily to Spain and also for permission to relocate the children permanently in Spain. Judgment, 06/10/2016, free
  • The judge had to decide whether, as the father and the children's guardian maintained, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction over the child in respect of matters of parental responsibility or whether, as his mother argued, jurisdiction now rests with the courts of Northern Ireland. The judge ruled in favour of the father. Judgment, 19/03/2018, free
  • In brief: A successful application by the mother (“M”) to prevent the father (“F”) from taking the child to his country of birth (Guinea) to visit his family because of the very high prevalence of FGM in that country (around 96% according to the UN's analysis and the expert evidence) and the likelihood that F's family would want to have the child "cut" or mutilated as a female child of the family. An FGMPO was made, lasting until the child’s 17th birthday with associated directions. Judgment, 09/03/2018, free
  • A case where the surrogate mother withdrew consent to hand over the baby to the commissioning parents. Judgment, 21/09/2016, free
  • Application for financial relief after an overseas divorce brought by a former wife under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Both parties were Russian nationals and it was the respondent's case that the Russian financial remedy order made in 2009 precluded any further claims the wife may have in relation to either spousal maintenance or a variation of any trust or post-nuptial settlement pursuant to section 24(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Mrs Justice Roberts decided that a Part III order would be appropriate, determination of which would be made at a later date. Judgment, 25/04/2016, free

Published: 31/12/1989

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item