S.8 of the CACA 1985 does not prohibit the court from granting an application solely because there had been no request from the judicial or administrative authorities of a contracting state in terms of art 15 of the Convention. A court should also not look at how a parent exercised custody rights only at whether they had such rights.
|
Wrongful Removal Of Children:
Lord Ordinary refused original petition in which the petitioner sought a declarator that the removal of her children to America was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children were at the time living with the respondent (Father) in terms of a residential order. The primary basis of the refusal had regard to the fact that there was no written request from the American courts or administrative authorities seeking as ...
|
A costs order was set aside where a judge had failed to investigate the appellant's means of paying the order or how much he should pay were an order was appropriate.
|
Permission to appeal injunctions made in children proceedings granted where a court had had no power to attach powers of arrest, the orders had no return date and the evidence on which the orders were made had not been sworn or served.
|
A judge had sufficiently balanced a 17yr old’s age against her reluctance to participate and evidence her welfare would suffer. However he failed to consider the benefit to a 14 yr old of participating where she was desperate to do so. The matter was remitted to the same judge.
|
K was granted a declaration that she was not, and had never, been married to D. The declaration was granted under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court as the situation was not covered by available declarations under s.55 FLA 1986
|
The court refused to substitute an order that a local authority provide a report under s.37 for the order that it file a report under s.7 CA 1989
|
The lower court made an error of law in dismissing a father’s application for joint residence. It was held however that given the delay and possible risk to the children’s welfare it would not be proper to remit the case for retrial.
|
The CA could exercise its discretion and make a fair assessment on the basis of the available information where it was common ground that an order made by the court below could not stand due to the failure of the court to accurately value the equity in the former matrimonial home.
|
A pathway plan under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 had to clearly identify the child’s needs, the action to be taken about them, by whom and by when. It was not unlawful or undesirable to appoint an employee of the local authority as a child’s personal adviser. However, it was important for both the adviser and the local authority to recognise that the adviser was acting in the role of adviser to the child.
|
| 1 2 3 |