Held that a judge in family proceedings had the right and the duty to bring the proceedings to an end where they reached the conclusion that issues in relation to contact could go no further. In such circumstances a judge was entitled to treat a directions hearing as the final hearing.
|
An appeal against findings of fact in care proceedings was partially successful, the CA holding that the mother had a legitimate complaint regarding the judge's findings as to causation and perpetration.
|
A judge's refusal to order a CAFCASS report was overruled the CA holding that there was an obligation on the court to pursue all possible avenues to achieving the resumption of direct contact between a parent and child.
|
A rehearing was ordered in a children case where the judge was held to have improperly curtailed a hearing and not investigated the need for supervision of contact. CA however recognized the frequent need and entitlement of a trial judge in children cases to act robustly in the exercise of their discretion.
|
Held that a mother had established a defence to proceedings seeking the return of her children to Venezuela. The judge had been entitled to rely upon evidence that the children were likely to be fearful of their safety and that of their mother if they were returned.
|
The Judge has a wide discretion over the conduct of contact proceedings and if he had concluded that proceedings could go no further he had both a right and a duty to bring them to a close. This was such a case and the CA held that it was therefore not unfair to make a final order for no contact even though the matter had been listed for directions only.
|
R (on the application of Axon) v Secretary of State for Health CA 23/01/06
|
A district judge at county court had misunderstood the purpose for which a case had been transferred to him from the family proceedings court and had therefore failed to give either party a fair hearing. The purpose of the hearing had been to have a final hearing of the evidence and the reaching of conclusions on that evidence.
|
The CA held that a Shared Residence order should have been granted in a case where there was a child with a strong attachment to both parents who was happy and confident in both homes; a real proximity of the two homes; a real proximity of the homes to the child’s school; a real familiarity of the child with both homes and a sense of belonging in each; a clear perception by the child that he had two homes; a relatively fluid passage of the child between the two homes; a fluid passage of the chil ...
|
A local authority did not owe a duty of care to parents in the conduct of care proceedings in respect of their child.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |