Family Law Hub

Children

Latest updates

  • The mother appealed against an order that she pay £109,394 in respect of the father's costs of a previous appeal. She had dropped that previous appeal after an attempt to bribe a Russian police officer (to instigate criminal charges against the father) led to her imprisonment. King LJ found that the judge had the jurisdiction to make the order for costs, and had made a decision within the ambit of his discretion. However, counsels' fees were unreasonable, and the appeal was allowed on that ground. The sum to be paid was reduced to £78,144. Underhill LJ and Moylan LJ agreed. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
  • The father applied for permission to appeal orders relating to financial remedies, care of the two children and non-molestation, claiming in particular that the assessment of income had been improper, and that there had been bias and error on the part of the judge. Theis J refused permission to appeal, except with regard to a narrow but important issue regarding the child arrangements order. Judgment, 19/07/2019, free
  • To be broadcast 1pm, Wednesday 9th October 2019. News, 18/07/2019, free
  • The father of the two girls, one of whom was in voluntary care, the other living with the mother, had made serious and unfounded allegations against the mother and HHJ Tolson QC. He was now making multiple applications for permission to appeal. Knowles J decided that all the applications were without merit, and none should be granted. He made an extended civil restraint order preventing the father from making any further applications. Judgment, 08/07/2019, free
  • This consultation period runs from Wednesday 3 July 2019 and will close on 30 September 2019. News, 04/07/2019, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Successful application by a father (“F”) for return of the child to a state other than the one in which the family had been habitually resident when the wrongful removal occurred. Case note, 08/07/2019, free
  • In brief: A successful application for recognition of an adoption order made in the Philippines in 2006 in which the judge found that the four pre-requisites to recognition of adoption in common law, as set out in Re N (Recognition of a Foreign Adoption) [2016] EWHC 3085, had been met. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was joined as an interested party because the outcome of the decision impacted the family’s prospects of applying to live in the UK. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In brief: The mother’s (“M”) application for a summary return of the parties’ son to the Republic of Sudan (a non-Hague Convention country) was allowed by the judge. The judgment is helpful in distilling the legal principles applicable in the context of a non-Convention application, as well as summarising neatly the key considerations to be assessed and weighed in determining a child’s habitual residence. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In a tweet: Successful application made under the Hague Child Abduction Convention despite a delay where mother (“M”) had been unaware of the Convention prior to her application. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • In brief: A preliminary ruling from the ECJ determined that in order to establish habitual residence under Article 8 BIIR, a child must be physically present in the member state. The circumstances of the child being physically present elsewhere are irrelevant. This was a referral from the English High Court where the father ("F") had allegedly coerced the mother ("M") into remaining in Bangladesh with the child, potentially in breach of their ECHR rights. Case note, 17/12/2018, members only

Latest training

Latest sources

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