- Everything (1434)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (5)
- Precedent (2)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (1)
- Article (2)
- Case note (483)
- News (75)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (22)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (40)
- Judgment (796)
- Practice direction (2)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- 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
- This consultation period runs from Wednesday 3 July 2019 and will close on 30 September 2019. News, 04/07/2019, 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 father sought permission to appeal against a decision with findings of fact that he had demonstrated controlling and coercive behaviour, undermining and assaulting the mother. Williams J was satisfied that HHJ Plunkett was justified in reaching the conclusions that he did. The father's acquittal for assault in the Crown Court was not inconsistent with the finding on the balance of probabilities that he had pushed the mother to the ground. The father was not focusing on his son's best interests. There was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal, and permission to appeal was refused. Judgment, 22/06/2019, free
- The mother appealed against an order for summary return of the child to Israel. Moylan LJ decided that the appeal must be dismissed. He found that there was no retention such that the 1980 Convention applied, but the judge had been entitled to make an order for the child's return under the court's inherent jurisdiction, and had taken into account the identified protective measures. Haddon-Cave LJ and Flaux LJ agreed. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
- The father had applied for the return of the children from Ukraine, where they had been kept for ten months. Mostyn J had stayed the application, in anticipation of the Ukrainian court reinstating the father's application there. This did not happen, so the stay was lifted and the application would be heard. Directions were given, but the judge also urged the parties to explore a mediated solution to the case. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
- The father had deprived the mother and son of their passports, stranding the child in India without either parent. Having previously declined to make an order for the child's summary return to England, Williams J found that the boy's welfare was now best promoted by being reunited with his mother. He made an interim order for the boy's return, subject to judges in India removing the order that prohibited his removal from that jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/06/2019, 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
- The father applied for the summary return to Germany of his two-year-old daughter, after the mother did not bring her back from a holiday. However, the father had not applied in the German courts for custody or contact, nor had the mother applied for custody, and Mostyn J criticised them for instead "devoting all their forensic energy to fighting this procedural battle". He found that the father had acquiesced in Article 13.1(a) terms to the daughter's continued living in the UK, and it would be precipitate to order her summary return before the matter had been brought before a German court. Judgment, 03/06/2019, 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