Family Law Hub

Harassment & Domestic Violence

Latest updates

  • The father applied for the summary return of two young girls to the USA. Mr Robert Peel QC had to make a determination as to whether the Hague Convention was engaged and, if so, whether there were statutory exceptions to the principle that the children should be returned to the country of habitual residence for decisions as to their future to be made. He found that the father had not consented to any permanent removal of the children to this jurisdiction. He also found that the pattern of domestic violence and abuse was not such that the Article 13(b) threshold was crossed, nor did the question marks about the mother's immigration status in the United States establish an Article 13(b) defence. Mr Robert Peel QC proposed to make an order for return on the basis of the protective measures he outlined. Judgment, 29/11/2019, free
  • An extended civil restraint order had not been sufficent to restrain the former husband's vexatious conduct. Mostyn J granted the former wife and the receiver orders for costs against the husband. He also made a general civil restraint order against him, calling it "one of the worst cases of vexatious litigation misconduct" that he had ever encountered. An order was also made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Judgment, 23/10/2019, free
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Roshi Amiraftabi of 29 Bedford Row, reviews the key private children law cases, themes and practice developments from the past 12 months. Webcast, 31/05/2018, members only
  • In this webcast, which was first presented on 16 July 2015, Anton Eriera from 29 Bedford Row talks about domestic violence cases and the most recent developments in this area of law. Webcast, 31/07/2015, 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