Family Law Hub

Contact

Latest updates

  • 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
  • The judge had ordered a change of residence for the son, but there had been direct communication between the judge and the National Youth Advocacy Service without the parents' knowledge, including a telephone conversation during a break in the hearing. Newton J understood how the judge reached the conclusions which she did, but the hearing was fundamentally flawed and the appeal was allowed. Judgment, 26/06/2019, free
  • The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • Court-ordered contact arrangements had broken down, and so the father lost credit for shared care and the Child Maintenance Service increased the amount of his weekly payments. He appealed against this. AI Poole QC, Judge of the Upper Tribunal, understood the father's frustration but refused the appeal. To do otherwise in this situation would not be in the interests of the child. Judgment, 31/05/2019, 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

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