- Everything (335)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (1)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (90)
- News (2)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (1)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (241)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- A Hague Convention child abduction case where the M, who spoke little or no English, was refused legal aid because, as the Cafcass report had not yet been prepared, insufficient information was provided as to the risks the father posed and the prospects of a successful outcome were poor. The M appealed to the Legal Aid Agency but they had not had time to reconsider their decision before this hearing. The judge expressed dismay over the waste of time and taxpayers money that this delay had on proceedings and adjourned the hearing, which meant that, by the time the case was heard, the six week time limit under the Council Regulation Brussels IIA will have been doubled. Judgment, 23/12/2013, free
- Application by Mother to commit Father to a further prison term for failing to comply with orders either to cause the return of their daughter from Egypt to England or to reveal her whereabouts. The judge ruled that it would not be proportionate or justifiable, nor, therefore, lawful to commit the Father to a yet further term of imprisonment. Judgment, 23/12/2013, free
- Case involving Father who was seeking his daughter's return under the Hague Convention. Much of the judgment was concerned with the child's wishes, which were vehemently against a return, but a return order was made. Judgment, 18/12/2013, free
- Application under the Hague Convention for the summary return of three children from this country to the Netherlands. An order was made for the return of the children to the Netherlands within 14 days. Judgment, 11/12/2013, free
- Judgment concerning return of a child to the US where the mother had successfully obtained a ruling in Texas that the child had been wrongfully retained in the US, the father had complied with that order and then had appeals turned down by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Father's appeal allowed. Judgment, 04/12/2013, free
- Following Mrs Justice Parker's order that 4 children be returned to England from Pakistan and F's acceptance that he would comply, 3 of the children did return with F but contact with M was extremely strained. Mrs Justice Parker reluctantly made an immediate ICO because the children were likely to be subjected to increasing emotional pressure and continuing significant harm if they stayed with their father. Judgment, 19/11/2013, free
- Parties who were in contempt of court for failing to disclose the whereabouts of the M and child in this widely publicised child abduction case were released from custody after the M's employer contacted the court with her contact details. Judgment, 13/11/2013, free
- The latest in the case involving the return of 4 children from Pakistan, where the 3 eldest were habitually resident in England, but the youngest was born in Pakistan and had never set foot in England. Mrs Justice Parker ruled that the return order still stood in respect of the 3 older children but that, as the youngest was a sibling and they were a group of 4, their futures should be heard together. F now accepted that he should bring the children back to England but until the children were returned, or at least on their way, the judge refused to release funds of the F which were subject to a freezing order where such a release might give more opportunity for obstruction. Judgment, 11/11/2013, free
- Another contempt of court case in which three members of the mother's family were held to have lied when saying that they did not know where the mother or child were. Judgment, 05/11/2013, free
- F's appeal against a decision by the judge which refused his application for a return of his 3 children, whom M had wrongfully removed to England, back to Norway. The 2 older children had been involved in an assault by F on M some years earlier which caused them to object to a return. In Thorpe LJ's last judgment before retirement he described the case as exceptional because the traumatic incident had affected them all, not only the relationship between husband and wife but the relationship between father and two children. So despite the fact that there had been no repetition, despite the fact that there were undoubtedly protective measures available, the gravity of the event and its consequences were plainly open to the judge as a sufficient foundation for her conclusion. Judgment, 21/10/2013, free