Family Law Hub

Children and Families Act 2014

Statute, published: 23/03/2014


Items referring to this

  • 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
  • In brief: Mr Justice MacDonald told off the barristers involved in this case (which concerns how much contact a 13 year old should have with her father (“F”) for the way they constantly interrupted one another. The interruptions had meant that important points were not raised or followed through which did not help the trial judge in making a sound decision. The expert psychologist was also criticised for producing a report at the last minute that was of poor quality and of no real help. Judgment, 22/03/2018, 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 pursuant to the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the 1980 Hague Convention for an order for the summary return of two children to the jurisdiction of Hungary. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 01/02/2018, free
  • Appeal by 'husband' (there had been a decree absolute) against refusal to admit expert evidence on earning capacity in the financial remedy proceedings. Appeal dismissed by Moor J as the evidence requested did not meet the necessary test of importance and that such evidence should be kept to a minimum in regular financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 21/02/2018, free
  • Appeal by father in private law proceedings, against order requiring he be subject to a psychological report and pay half the costs. Appeal allowed because, broadly, the court and judge on appeal had ignored the current Rules on experts that came into force in 2013. Judgment, 10/06/2015, 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
  • In force from 22 April News, 17/04/2014, free
  • The Children and Families Bill received Royal Assent on 13 March. James Finch of 29 Bedford Row looks at what reforms got through the lengthy Parliamentary process. Article, 23/03/2014, 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • These Rules include amendments to the FPR 2010 Practice note, 11/11/2015, members only
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • The Court of Appeal refused the mother (“M”) permission to appeal an earlier decision to refuse to admit expert evidence obtained by M without the court’s permission and without notice to the other parties. M's actions were a clear breach of s.13 Children and Families Act 2014. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Nicola Rowlings, PSL with Mills & Reeve, sets out the new MIAMS procedure in the single Family Court Practice note, 25/04/2014, members only
  • Appeal against a refusal to grant a wife a decree nisi of divorce on the basis that the wife had failed to prove, within the meaning of section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, even though the judge had found as a fact that the marriage had broken down. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 24/03/2017, free
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • In brief: An unsuccessful application brought by a father (“F”) for the summary return to the Ivory Coast of his two young children. The mother (“M”) had removed the children to England four months earlier. Despite finding that the children’s habitual residence was the Ivory Coast, the court determined it was not in the children’s best interests to be returned in circumstances which may well have led to a further move for the children in due course. Judgment, 05/07/2018, free
  • Proceedings concerning children whose father removed them to Pakistan, whose mother had died and whose maternal aunt and uncle sought to adopt them in the USA. Judgment, 26/06/2015, free
  • This Practice Note will be free to view this week and will then be available only to paid members Practice note, 29/04/2014, registration required
  • Mother's appeal against an order which ordered that the children be returned to Canada was dismissed. Judgment, 29/05/2018, 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

Published: 23/03/2014


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.


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