Latest updates
- A circuit judge sitting in the Family Court had held that the father, on a single occasion, had sexually abused his daughter. Holman J found that the judge's findings, in a very difficult case, were unreliable. He identified ten issues with them, including that no independent expert view had been brought to bear upon the forensic evidence. Justice, not only to the father but above all to the child, required that the whole matter be reconsidered afresh by a completely different judge. The very young age of the child made this an exceptional case and so the re-hearing would take place before a High Court judge. Judgment, 14/01/2020, free
- Divorcing couples will no longer have to blame one another for the breakdown of their marriage as a Bill that seeks to reduce family conflict enters Parliament today (7 January 2020). News, 08/01/2020, free
- The father applied for child arrangements orders in respect of these two children. Pursuant to s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989, the mother applied to prevent the father from making any further Children Act applications without leave of the court. The father was a litigant in person, but also a qualified member of the Bar, and yet his behaviour during the hearing was described by Keehan J as appalling, aggressive, incoherent and intimidating, for example with regard to the expert witness psychologist during cross-examination. This supported the conclusions in her report as to his lack of empathy and narcissistic personality disorder. An order for direct contact would have a devastating impact upon the mother, which would have a serious adverse impact indirectly on the two children. Keehan J was entirely satisfied that it was not in the best interests of either child to have direct contact with the father, and a s.91(14) order was imposed upon him for a period of two years. He was urged to seek professional help. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free
- The son had been retained in India by the mother, despite orders made for his return. The father applied for committal of the mother. Williams J was satisfied that the relevant orders had been properly served on the mother, that she was aware of the obligation to return the son, that the obligation was clear, and that the orders were clear as to the consequences of non-compliance. The mother had wilfully failed to comply with three orders of the court, and he therefore found her in contempt. The sentence of six months' imprisonment was suspended for 28 days to give her a final opportunity to return the child. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
- Latest update looks at pressures on the family court, expert witness working group, mini-pupillage scheme for medical experts, police disclosure, children accommodated in unregulated placements that have approved by the court and the transparency review. News, 20/12/2019, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: Names of the respondents made public in an attempt to shame them into returning children who had been removed from the jurisdiction in breach of a shared live with order. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Child determined to have insufficient understanding to conduct an appeal independently of a child’s guardian. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- Hearing at which all allegations made by mother against father were held to be untrue and the judge stated that there ought to be an immediate resumption of direct contact. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Competing jurisdiction case in which a father’s application for a stay of proceeding was dismissed. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Mother’s appeal partially allowed to permit instruction of an expert child psychiatrist to assess contact as between M and the child. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
Latest training
- Recording of talk given by HHJ Edward Hess at the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 09/12/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 29th November 2019. Webcast, 02/12/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 3rd October 2019. Webcast, 03/10/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 21st March 2019 Webcast, 26/03/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 6 March 2019. Presented by Matthew Warmoth, barrister at Fourteen. Webcast, 07/03/2019, members only
Latest sources
- The text of guidance requiring orders in non-financial cases to be drafted on the day of the hearing in the Central Family Court. In force from 12 November 2018 Practice direction, 23/11/2018, free
- Use this form to ask the President of the Family Division to authorise individuals working for the named charity to attend and report on family proceedings. Form (external), 01/10/2018, free
- Use this form if you have authority to attend and report on a family proceedings hearing. A form is needed for each hearing you attend. Form (external), 01/10/2018, free
- Came into force on 23 July 2018 Practice direction, 27/07/2018, free
- New Practice Direction on bundles, supplementing FPR Part 27, will come into force on 23 July. Practice direction, 20/06/2018, free