Family Law Hub

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992

Statute, published: 15/04/1992

Items referring to this

  • 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
  • Declaration sought that the husband, who had not been heard of since 2009, had died Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • In brief: A further hearing in these long-running proceedings where the children had been taken to Nigeria and had been prevented from returning to England. An order had previously been made that the children’s return to England would be facilitated by the father’s (“F”) brother / F’s son (depending upon whose version of the identity of the same man you relied upon) in time for this hearing. None of the children had been returned and the brother / son, who had been ordered to attend the hearing, had gone missing. A warrant was issued for the brother / son’s arrest and the mother (“M”) was able to personally serve F with a fresh application to commit him to prison for further alleged contempts of court (F already being in custody). Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • An order was made that the children, who had been taken by the mother to live in Alaska with her and her new husband, should remain living with him in Alaska while criminal proceedings against the mother (who was now in custody in the UK) took place. Judgment, 21/05/2018, free
  • Application by a father for the return of his daughter to Poland pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. An order for her return was made after the judge held that the mother's defence under Article 13b was not sustainable. Judgment, 01/05/2018, free
  • Appeal against award in Inheritance Act proceedings arising in circumstances where a father had not made provision for his 3 children in the will. At first instance the judge had made an award to the claimant children leaving the defendant with 69k out of 699k. Her appeal was rejected though the awards to the children reduced slightly as a result of fresh evidence about the value of the estate and other costs incurred. Judgment, 22/10/2018, free
  • An Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim where the deceased husband's will did not provide for one of his sons and his wife. The case was further complicated by an ambiguity in how the only asset, a house, was owned by the husband and another son - whether as tenants in common or as joint tenants. The final hearing was adjourned because there was huge ambiguity as to the legal position of the family home and whether or not there was any money left in D’s estate, one of the defendants had arrived at court to find himself unrepresented and facing an application that had not been served on him and the bundle had also failed to include a copy of the will. Judgment, 24/04/2018, 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
  • 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
  • The question in this case was whether a proprietory estoppel operated in favour of the claimant son such as to give him an interest in the family farm and, if so, what interest. The judge held that the son made out his case. Judgment, 06/06/2018, free
  • In brief: The High Court ordered a child's return to England under BIIR following a non-return order being made summarily under the Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child abduction. The case highlights how a review under BIIR can lead to the reversal of a non-return order made summarily under different legislation and clarifies the framework within which the court determines applications in these circumstances. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free

Published: 15/04/1992

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