Family Law Hub

Contact

Latest updates

  • An appeal against the decision of the deputy High Court judge, who had exercised the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to order the return of the boy to India, and had refused an application by the boy's mother under the 1980 Hague Convention for his return to the USA, from where he had been removed in disputed circumstances by the father in 2017. The father was currently in prison in London, awaiting an extradition decision, an international arrest warrant having been issued after he removed the boy from the USA. The mother currently sought asylum in the USA. The child was currently in the care of a paternal aunt, in England. The mother appealed on the grounds that the judge had failed to respect international comity by ignoring the American orders, the judge's welfare analysis had been inadequate, and the judge's finding of fact that the mother had consented to the permanent removal to India had been flawed. The challenges to the findings of fact failed. So did the argument on international comity: the American orders had been based upon the mother's case that the child had been abducted, and the deputy High Court judge had found that he had not been. As to welfare, in Peter Jackson LJ's view the deputy High Court judge's approach had been sound, and practical. He did not accept that the decision to return the boy to India had been wrong. His one reservation was with regard to contact after the boy returned. Proposals from the father's solicitor for direct and indirect contact in India for the mother and maternal family would be reflected in a recital to the Court of Appeal's order. Arnold LJ and Henderson LJ agreed. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 03/08/2021, free
  • The marriage had broken down one year before and the parents were now living separately, both in Dubai. The court was concerned with the arrangements for two children, aged 6 and 3, in relation to the time they would spend between their parents' homes. Both parents accepted that court intervention was necessary because of their inability to agree a way forward. The children had shown increasing signs of distress. Roberts J found that the children had indeed suffered emotional harm through this period, and the older child's insecurities had not been properly addressed in the very early days of the breakdown of the parents' relationship. The father accepted that he had exposed the children to far too much of the parental conflict. However, his actions had not been sufficient to provide an evidential basis for the restrictions on his parental responsibility which the mother sought. Roberts J ordered a three-stage set of arrangements, which at first involved two overnight stays on alternate weeks, and then eventually four overnight stays per fortnight. Judgment, 26/05/2021, free
  • The parents had separated in 2015, and the girls were now aged 13 and 11. The father applied for variation of the shared-care child arrangements order, following local authority concerns as to the mother's alcohol use and mental health. The mother sought a return to the previous shared care arrangement, which had been suspended throughout the proceedings. HHJ Vincent noted that the children’s welfare was the paramount consideration. The mother did not recognise the concerns about her parenting, and to the extent she accepted that she had an issue with alcohol, she denied it would have impacted upon the children. It was evident that she was unable to regulate her emotions. Having regard to all the evidence he had heard and read, and considering all the factors on the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, HHJ Vincent was satisfied that the girls’ welfare needs were met by a continuation of the current arrangements. He ordered that the children would live with their father, and that any direct contact should be supervised by a third party. Judgment, 26/05/2021, free
  • The father was Japanese, and the mother was Polish Canadian, currently living in England. The father applied under Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention for a contact order in respect of his 11-year-old son. There had been weekly telephone calls but no direct contact since 2018. The father was in substantial arrears of a maintenance pending suit order, and might face enforcement proceedings if returning to England. He proposed that contact should take place immediately in Japan. The mother's position was that it should take place initially in England before possibly, subject to the child's wishes, progressing to Japan. The Family Court Adviser raised the option of contact in France. In Peel J's view, it would be premature to make an order for contact in Japan. It would be against the son's wishes, and it was too soon to embark on such a major step. Although Japan was a Hague Convention signatory, he had no evidence as to the speed with which a return order would be made and implemented there, and the consequences for the son of being separated from his primary carer for a substantial period would be highly damaging. Peel J ordered that contact should take place in England, at first for one week in each of the summer and Christmas 2021 school holidays. The father would be ordered to lodge his passport with an appropriate firm at the beginning of each contact period. A prohibited steps order would be made preventing the father from removing the son from the mother's care (save for the purposes of contact) or removing him from this jurisdiction without her written consent. However, the making of this order would be conditional upon the mother not pursuing a judgment summons, or any other step leading to imprisonment of the father arising out of breach of the financial remedy order. If she was unwilling to give that assurance, the order would not be made in those terms. The quantum and duration of contact, and conditions, would be in the same terms, but the place of contact would be France. Judgment, 28/04/2021, free
  • The issue to determine was how much the four-year-old daughter should see of her father. The mother had alleged domestic abuse and rape. HHJ Tolson QC said it might be thought that the allegations "could have been safely consigned to the past", given that "at the time of the first allegation the mother was not even pregnant with [the daughter]" but in "the era in which we now operate … such allegations are invariably taken very seriously". He invited "both parents and everyone involved in the case to recall that all we are about is establishing, if possible, a good relationship between a little girl and her father" and the allegations of rape, which he described as "limited non-consensual sex", "would have, in my judgment, almost no implications at this stage for the future development of the relationship between the father and [the daughter]". He found that the mother's allegations of the first incident were "deeply unconvincing stuff", which meant that in his view he was "faced with a dishonest witness and it is a very long step indeed to my accepting the accuracy of her version of events" as to the second alleged incident. He reached the conclusion that the events did not happen, while the alleged "financial abuse and emotional abuse and harassment, have not been investigated during this trial" and had "no implications for the future child arrangements in the context of this case". His conclusion was that "there are no relevant findings which amount to any risk to the child or indeed any risk to the mother herself", and so the way was now clear "to develop the father's relationship with [the daughter] into one where there is a normal relationship between a separated father and his daughter". He provided for a further hearing, should agreement between the parties prove impossible. A later note stated that the parties had reached agreement and an order by consent had been made. Judgment, 06/04/2021, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Recording of webinar broadcast live on 23 February 2017. Webcast, 02/03/2017, members only
  • In this webcast, which was recorded on 1 September 2016, Charlotte Trace, barrister at 29 Bedford Row, takes us through how to make private law Children Act applications, principally applications under section 8 of the Act (namely for contact, residence, specific issue and prohibited steps orders) and applications under section 11 for contact activity directions and conditions, and for enforcement. Webcast, 02/09/2016, members only
  • Piers Pressdee QC of 29 Bedford Row reviews the major developments within the private children law field in the last year. He focusses on the case-law, identifying the key decisions and seeking to set that case-law within context. Webcast, 24/02/2016, members only
  • Webinar recorded on 15 January 2015. Dafydd Griffiths of 29 Bedford Row reviews the private children law cases of 2014 and picks out some themes to look out for in 2015. Webcast, 15/01/2015, members only
  • Webcast on recent developments in private children law. Webcast, 16/10/2013, members only

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