While the instruction of experts in family proceedings must be controlled the court should be slow to refuse an application for a second expert opinion in cases such a Non-accidental head injury where certain evidence may be pivotal and by it's nature not easily challenged save for by another expert opinion.
|
Refusal of child benefits to applicants who each had the benefit of limited residence which had been regulary renewed where domestic law was such that only aliens with aresidence permit or provisional residence permit were entitled to such benefits, violated the applicant's rights under art 14 together with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights..
|
A father (F) was found to have been in contempt of court for breach of an injunction granted in favour of the mother. The injunction prohibited the F’s publishing or disclosing information regarding the children proceedings. He had published judgments on an internet site in such a way as to identify the child, for which he had received a 28 suspended committal order. However, there had been no order expressly restraining the publication of the judgments and no penal notice. Although F had been w ...
|
The best interests of a child in the context of the withholding of medical treatment were not to be determined by the test of whether the child’s quality of life would be intolerable. Best interests encompassed medical, emotional and all other welfare issues. There was no obligation on the medical profession to administer futile treatment. The declarations made were permissive not mandatory – permitting the Hospital not to re-ventilate if the child suffered a crisis. The case has since returned ...
|
A Judge refused a F’s application for contact. There were allegations of sexual abuse of the child against F which the Judge had considered and determined against him. The F’s appeal was not allowed against that order: It was the Judge’s role to decide which witness he preferred. He had done so and he had been alive to the deficiencies in the evidence before him.
|
The LA had obtained an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) in order to protect four children from the risk posed by their F insisting upon driving them to school in the absence of a valid driving licence and in circumstances where he was registered blind. The police power to remove a child under s46 Children Act 1989 could be invoked even where an EPO was in force, but where the Police officer was aware of the existence of the EPO police powers to remove should not be used unless there were compell ...
|
Unsuccessful appeal against residence order to F (German). Both parents had worked in the UK during the relationship. Upon separation the Italian M had returned with the child to Italy and had obstructed contact. The English Courts made an order in his favour. In spite of the child’s lack of family connections in the UK the Judge had been correct to make an order maximizing the child’s chance of spending good contact with both parents.
|
When determining a fair sharing of the net value of the matrimonial property the incidence of debt was held to be as relevant as when calculating the net value itself.
|
Article 12 of the Convention was held to be violated by the prohibition under the Marriage Act 1949 of a marriage between an ex-father-in-law and daughter-in-law after their previous relationships endthrough divorce. Such a marriage was forbidden unless both their former partners had died or unless a private act of parliament allowed it.
|
In view of the LA’s limited finances and its overall responsibilities it was held reasonable for a LA to impose conditions on a loan to helpfund adaptations to a disabled child’s home including one which made provision for repayment in the event that the child no longer lived there permanently or died.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |