A judge had erred in exercising his discretion by ordering F to return the parties’ children to M where F had made serious allegations against M and the judge had failed to at least carry out pre-emptory investigations into those allegations.
|
HL decided that a person illegally present in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 could still be habitually resident within the jurisdiction for the purposes of s 5 (2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and have a domicile of choice there, and consequently the English Courts could entertain her divorce petition.
|
A non-biological father’s appeal was dismissed where the trial judge’s decision not to order contact had been within his discretionary bounds.
|
There is a strong presumption in favour of allowing a litigant in person a McKenzie friend. A request should only be refused for compelling reasons, which a judge should identify and explain fully. There is no reason in principle why a litigant in person should not disclose papers to his McKenzie friend however this should only be for the purpose of the proceedings any other use would be a contempt of court. There is no objection in principle to disclosure of court documents to a public authorit ...
|
Where a Father failed to comply with the majority of the conditions of a conditional order for return of children the order would be set aside and the children were to remain in England.
|
M applied to renew contact despite hostility from her children. She also wanted the court to produce a further report on her mental health, to join the children to the proceedings, for a guardian to be appointed, and for a transfer to the High Court. She was only granted indirect contact, and was not to know F’s and school’s addresses. The judge had erred in not giving directions for a psychological/psychiatric report, thus failing to intervene sooner, as he himself had thought necessary, and fa ...
|
The children lived with F. An order was made for indirect contact with M only, the Judge being unwilling to go behind the entrenched and severe and implacable hostility exhibited by the children towards their mother, in view of their age (13 and rising 16). The Judge had been plainly wrong – the court had to take account of the fact that the children’s views had been corrupted by the malignancy of the views with which they had been force fed by the F’s family. The court should have been more rob ...
|
In considering whether a child ought summarily to be returned to his home country, being a non contracting Hague Convention country, for a decision to be made as to his future residence, the fact that the family law procedures of that country differ from those of the UK is relevant, but the extent of its relevance depends on the facts of the particular case. The welfare of the individual child is paramount and the specialist rules and concepts of the Convention do not apply by analogy.
|
It was inappropriate for a judge to decide on contact at a 45-minute directions hearing and without the advantage of a report from CAFCASS. A court should decide a case on proper evidence and inquiries. Although there were cases where it might be appropriate to take short-cuts, namely if the written evidence was complete, this was not one such case.
|
A residence order in favour of the respondent F was set aside for the judge had been procedurally unfair by indicating that historic factual issues would not be determined, resulting in the appellant M curtailing her evidence and having adverse findings made against her on those issues.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |