Latest updates
- The father appealed against the dismissal of his application for a prohibited steps order, which would have prevented the mother taking their child to Iraq. He argued that the judge had not adequately considered the risk of the child not being returned, nor whether the child would be safe in Iraq. However, Russell J DBE found that the judgment was wholly concerned with the child's welfare, the risk of the mother retaining the child was low, and indeed the greater risk of wrongful retention lay with the father. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 14/10/2019, free
- The father had difficulties with anger management, volatility and aggression. The circuit judge had made a child arrangements order, including orders for supervised contact, non-molestation and prohibited steps, against which the father had, following a course of therapy, unsuccessfully appealed. He now appealed with regard to the fairness of those hearings. Baker LJ found that there had been no indication to the father, a litigant in person, that the court would be making orders in respect of his future contact or concluding the proceedings. The summary dismissal of his appeal had also been wrong. The two hearings together represented an unwarranted infringement of his rights to a fair hearing. Peter Jackson LJ agreed, and the matter was remitted for a further hearing. Judgment, 28/05/2019, 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
- A declaration was made that the mother had wrongfully removed the child to Hungary the day after a prohibited steps order had been made, but which had not been served on the mother because she was not at home when the process server tried to serve the order. Judgment, 26/05/2017, free
- The father (“F”) opposed an application by the mother (“M”) to vary a prohibited steps order that prevented her going on holiday with the children. M was Iranian and there were concerns she would take the children to Iran – a non-Hague country – where F, as a prominent LGBT+ campaigner would be prevented from travelling to. The variation was made by the court, the court having assessed the risk of wrongful retention as low. Judgment, 17/02/2017, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: High Court guidance on radicalisation in private children law proceedings Case note, 21/09/2016, members only
- Case note, 21/01/2013, free
- Case note, 18/05/2010, members only
Latest sources
- Form (external), 01/04/2012, free