Family Law Hub

Contact

Latest updates

  • After some delay, the mother sought permission to appeal against an order for the child to live with his father. Williams J reviewed the expert evidence and stated that almost every judge would have reached the same conclusion on the evidence available. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 01/05/2019, free
  • Contrary to court orders, the father had wrongfully taken his son – a young man of nineteen with profound learning disabilities – to live in the USA. The mother sought an order for his return to the UK. Russell J DBE held that there were grounds for finding that a return to the UK was not in the young man's best interests. The child's future as an adult lay in the USA and these proceedings were to come to an end in recognition of that fact. The appropriate forum for any future litigation was the court in Texas. Judgment, 15/04/2019, free
  • The father appealed against an order which prevented him from bringing further applications for contact or residence for three years. The judge had found that the children would suffer emotional harm if required to have direct contact with the father, who had completely lost sight of their welfare. Longmore, Peter Jackson and Coulson LJJ dismissed the appeal. Judgment, 09/04/2019, free
  • The father of a twenty-one-year-old woman, who had served time in prison for his behaviour towards the mother, sought to vary a non-molestation order that prevented him contacting the daughter. The daughter was opposed to any contact, other than through her solicitors. Williams J saw no merit at all in the application. Judgment, 09/04/2019, free
  • The father appealed from a finding that he had sexually abused his daughter, on the basis that the judge had failed to apply the relevant legal principles to the evaluation of the child's evidence. Williams J found that the judgment was flawed and remitted the matter for further hearing, stating that "in relation to allegations of sexual abuse of young children the court must not only deploy the generic fact-finding approach but must in particular identify the need for special care to be taken in evaluating the reliability of the evidence of young children". Judgment, 03/04/2019, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: A non-parent without rights granted by a court or by someone with parental rights can use Article 21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 19801980 Hague Convention to gain rights of access Case note, 26/10/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Court of Appeal rules that parents of sperm donor have the right to see biological grandson Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: CoA gives guidance on approach where case involves allegations of DV Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: CoA overturn Jackson J's indirect contact only between a transgender F and her five children from the Charedi community Case note, 19/01/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal against a living with order Case note, 19/01/2018, members only

Latest training

  • 10 questions on the various cases summarised in the July 2017 Family Law Hub Digest CPD course, 25/08/2017, members only
  • Recording of webinar broadcast live on 23 February 2017. Webcast, 02/03/2017, members only
  • 12 questions to accompany Charlotte Trace's lecture on s8 and 11 CA applications CPD course, 06/09/2016, 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

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