- Everything (1484)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (5)
- Precedent (2)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (1)
- Article (4)
- Case note (483)
- News (79)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (23)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (40)
- Judgment (839)
- Practice direction (2)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The wife applied to strike out the husband's claim for damages in respect of deceit. She had misled him into thinking that he was the biological father of their child. Cohen J's view was that the tort of deceit could exist between husband and wife, but he did not make a concluded finding on that issue. He was of the clear view that there were no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and, given that financial remedy proceedings were ongoing, it was an abuse of the court's process. The deceit proceedings were struck out. Judgment, 30/10/2019, free
- HHJ Wildblood QC decided that this heavily anonymised judgment should be released for publication, because it was in the public's interest to see badly wrong things could go in cases of parental alienation. There had been a failure here to identify the problem before the damage was done, and early intervention was essential. Indirect contact was of limited use in such cases. The extent of the children's alienation from the father had been underestimated, and now, following a failed transfer of residence, he had no contact with them at all, and had withdrawn proceedings to prevent further distress. In this hearing HHJ Wildblood QC gave the local authority permission to withdraw their public law proceedings. Judgment, 21/10/2019, free
- The father applied for the son's care to be transferred from the mother to him, after the son rejected contact. Keehan J was highly critical of the evidence given by the social worker and the NYAS caseworker, accepting instead the report of an expert in the field of parental alienation. He noted that the mother's evidence at times consisted of a diatribe against the father. The mother saw no benefit in the son and father having a relationship, and she had plainly alienated the child against him. The best interests of the child required that a child arrangements order be made, that he should live with his father. Judgment, 17/10/2019, free
- The father appealed against the dismissal of his application for a prohibited steps order, which would have prevented the mother taking their child to Iraq. He argued that the judge had not adequately considered the risk of the child not being returned, nor whether the child would be safe in Iraq. However, Russell J DBE found that the judgment was wholly concerned with the child's welfare, the risk of the mother retaining the child was low, and indeed the greater risk of wrongful retention lay with the father. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 14/10/2019, free
- The mother appealed against an order for the summary return of her child to Israel. Moylan LJ held that the judge had properly taken into account the protective measures in place and had reached a determination that was open to him. However, what had happened in this case did not amount to a retention within the scope of the 1980 Hague Convention, so the judge's order would be replaced by one made under the inherent jurisdiction. Flaux LJ and Haddon-Cave LJ agreed, and the appeal was dismissed save for that change. Judgment, 08/10/2019, free
- The father applied for the summary return of three children to Germany. The mother had been the primary carer but the father had shared custody. After he went to court in Germany to re-establish contact, she clandestinely brought the children to the United Kingdom. Mr Robert Peel QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found that she had not made out a defence under Article 13(b), and ordered a mandatory return. The German courts were better placed to decide the issues of contact, custody and possible relocation. Judgment, 07/10/2019, free
- This is the first of two articles concerning challenging a nil assessment by the Child Maintenance Service. This article covers two potential routes for applying for variation: income not yet taken into account, and diversion of income. Next week, we will consider two further reasons: unearned income and notional income from assets. News, 03/10/2019, free
- The mother claimed that her contact with the four children had been severely restricted in Pakistan, and she had not seen them at all since they had travelled to England with the father. She wished to re-establish contact. Sir Andrew McFarlane P found that, contrary to the children's belief, she did not abandon them in Pakistan; she was forced out by their father and his family and then kept away. Those findings of fact would now form the basis upon which the court would consider what steps could be taken to reintroduce her to the lives of her children. Judgment, 02/10/2019, free
- The father lived in Oman, the children and mother in England. The father was in breach of orders made in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 proceedings. The mother applied for a child arrangements order to the effect that the children live with her. The court in Oman had ordered that custody of the children should be removed from the mother, despite the father having previously undertaken not to issue proceedings in Oman. Holman J was in no doubt that it was in the best interests of the children to continue to live in England with their mother. There was no possibility of them visiting Oman, due to the risk of them not being returned. Any contact with the father in England would have to occur while he was sober, and in the presence of a third party to prevent abduction. Judgment, 20/09/2019, 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