This is a case about the rights of unmarried fathers to take part in children’s hearings under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It raises two distinct issues. The first concerns the kind of order made in the sheriff court which would be effective to give a father the right to take part in the children’s hearing. The second concerns the compatibility of the statutory scheme for participation in the children’s hearing with the rights of the father (and indeed the child) under the Europ ...
|
Appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 57. In this judgment the Supreme Court reformulates the approach a family court should take when exercising its discretion to decide whether to order a child to give live evidence in family proceedings. In so doing it removes the presumption or starting point of the current test, which is rarely if ever rebutted, that it is only in the exceptional case that a child should be so called.
|
Supreme Court Press Summary BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL This appeal concerns whether an English court has jurisdiction to determine the future level of contact between a child and his mother where the child does not habitually reside in an EU Member State. Under article 12.3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels II Revised”) parties are able to opt in to the jurisdiction of an EU court which would not otherwise have jurisdiction to determine a child’s future. This ...
|
Supreme Court Press Summary – 26 November 2009 Background Local authorities owe a variety of duties towards children in need, who may include unaccompanied minors coming here to seek asylum. Such children may be entitled to accommodation and other help which is different from, and rather better than, the services available to adults. So disputes may arise about whether a young person is or is not a child. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that it is ultimately for the courts ...
|
Supreme Court Press Summary - 19 November 2009 Background to the appeal H is a three year old child whose parents separated before his birth. From the date of his birth until very recently, H has lived with his maternal grandmother, GB. H’s mother, GLB, lived with her mother and H intermittently at GB’s home from the time he was born until July 2006. She left GB’s home then and has not returned. In November 2006, GB was granted, by consent, a residence order in respect of H. ...
|
The HL held that a judge was entitled to decide that it was beyond his jurisdiction to order a further period therapeutic treatment for a mother in care proceedings. A s.38(6) order could only be properly made if it was for a medical or psychiatric assessment of the child. It was not appropriate to use s.38(6) where in reality the focus of the work to be done is therapy or treatment aimed at bringing about a long term change in a parent’s capacity to parent.
|
A former wife with care of the children has no right under the Child Support Act 1991 to enforce her former husband’s liability to pay maintenance, but these provisions are still consistent with the right of access to a court (Art.6 ECHR)
|
| 1 |