Held that a judge should not have dismissed an originating summons under the Hague Convention in it’s entirety where summary return had been denied but a full welfare hearing on the second limb of the father’s application had not taken place.
|
Held parents in care proceedings not disadvantaged by a refusal of permission to instruct a further expert to give an opinion at a risk assessment hearing since opinions already obtained dealt with the issues which would have been considered.
|
The court gave guidance on good practice in emergency protection orders and added to the guidance in A Local Authority v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 two requirements: 1) without notice EPO hearings should be tape recorded 2)full account of the proceedings should be provided to parents regardless of whether requested or not.
|
A judge determining an application for financial relief for a child had not looked at the child's needs as distinct from the mother's. Commented on the advantages of separate representation for the child in applications under s.15.
|
Held that it was not in the best interests of an 18-month-old child with the severest form of spinal muscular atrophy to withdraw life-supporting ventilation.
|
Upheld decision to order supervised contact for a father where there was evidence of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards his children. The court made general observations on time limits for lodging notice of appeal and form of orders where there is a split trial.
|
The CSA procedure prior to the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for assessing non-resident parents in same-sex couples did not amount to adverse discrimination under human rights legislation. The aim of the complicated formulae was to strike a fair balance.
|
The UK requirement of a father's consent for the continued storage and/or implantation of fertilised eggs had not exceeded the UK’s margin of appreciation and was not in violation of Human Rights Act 1989 Sch. 1 Part I Art. 2, Art. 8 or Art. 14.
|
Held a judge had the opportunity and responsibility to adjourn a case for investigation in another jurisdiction of his own motion even if that outcome had not been originally sought by either party.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |