Family Law Hub


Latest updates

  • The mother wrongfully removed the son to the UK. Her application for asylum on the basis of being a victim of domestic violence was granted on appeal. The father was applying under the Hague Convention for summary return, and in this hearing applied for disclosure of the asylum files relating to the mother and child, contending that his Article 6 and 8 rights could not otherwise be preserved. The Secretary of State for the Home Department resisted disclosure. HHJ Corbett was satisfied that the impact of disclosure upon the asylum process would outweigh the impact of non-disclosure on the Article 6 and 8 rights of the father and child. The application for disclosure was refused. Judgment, 05/09/2019, free
  • To be broadcast 1pm, Wednesday 9th October 2019. News, 02/09/2019, free
  • The father would not give consent for his seven-year-old daughter to have brain surgery to alleviate her drug resistant epilepsy, and so the mother applied for a specific issue order. There was a 1 in 2 chance of the procedure being successful. The risk to the child's life could be as high as 1 in 500, but there was a 1 in 250 risk to her life each year from the epilepsy if uncontrolled. Taking all matters into account, and guided by the paramount question of the child's welfare, Gwynneth Knowles J made a specific issue order to the effect that the surgery should take place. Judgment, 18/08/2019, free
  • The questions were whether a child should be told of his biological father, whether the husband (the psychological father) should be allowed to take the child on holiday to France, and what directions should be given relating to a deceit claim. The mother did not want the child to be told, and the biological father denied his paternity. Cohen J decided that the child should be told when an independent social worker, agreed upon by the parents, thought the time was right. He refused permission for the holiday, not being confident that the child's return could be achieved if the husband took him to the UAE. Cohen J allowed the mother's application to strike out the deceit claim to proceed to a hearing. Judgment, 18/08/2019, free
  • The mother applied to change the daughter's surname to that of her second husband. As well as applying for contact under article 21 of the Hague Convention, the father wanted to know the daughter's school and GP. He had a history of violent and threatening behaviour towards the mother and child. Theis J decided that the mother should be permitted to withhold that information, but refused the application to change the daughter's surname, because such a step would not meet her welfare needs. Judgment, 13/08/2019, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Mother’s (“M”) appeal allowed in respect of private law child proceedings in which she alleged she had been “stranded” by the father (“F”) in Pakistan. Case note, 13/09/2019, members only
  • An application for the child to be made a ward of the court and for a child arrangements order was rejected. Case note, 13/09/2019, members only
  • An application brought by the paternal aunt and uncle for permission to remove the child from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, in order to give evidence in a criminal trial. Case note, 13/09/2019, members only
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful application brought by father of twin boys for their return from China to this jurisdiction pursuant to inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Case note, 13/09/2019, members only
  • In a tweet: Appeal by father against a decision to order only indirect contact between he and his son part allowed in complex Children Act proceedings with a private and public law interface. Case note, 06/08/2019, members only

Latest training

Latest sources


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