The CA upheld a judge’s decision to dismiss a grandmother’s application within care proceedings for residence orders in respect of three of her grandchildren.
|
An appeal by foster carers, who had applied for a residence order for a child, against the dismissal of their application to be joined as parties to care proceedings in respect of that child was allowed.
|
An appeal against a costs order made on an indemnity basis against a mother was allowed and the order set aside. Due to a clerical error the District Judge had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the mother had not complied with his previous order to produce medical evidence in support of her non-attendance.
|
An appeal was allowed against the making of a final care order. In the proceedings allegations had been made that a child had been sexually abused by her father. The judge had found on the balance of probabilities that the abuse had not taken place. It had therefore not been open to the judge to hold that the threshold criteria had been satisfied on the basis of failure to protect. The CA noted it was difficult to see logically how a parent could be held to have failed to protect a child agains ...
|
CA held that a judge did not have the power to make a special guardianship order where no report had been obtained from the LA under s14 (8) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. However in a case where as in the instant case the bulk of the information necessary was already before the court the LA would only be required to file a report cross-referencing to the relevant information in the court’s papers and giving the missing information.
|
The CA dismissed a mother’s appeal against the refusal of her application to remove her daughter permanently from the jurisdiction to the USA. The judge had sufficiently explained his reasons for refusal and was entitled to make the decision.
|
An appeal against the decision of a judge to make a special guardianship order rather than the adoption order sought was dismissed. The CA gave guidance on the proper approach in deciding which of the two orders should be made.
|
The CA held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion the welfare needs of a child required the making of an adoption order and that a special guardianship order would be insufficient.
|
The CA held that special guardianship orders had not effectively replaced adoption orders where children were in family placement. Each case had to be decided on it’s facts and the judge had been right to reject the option of a special guardianship order and to hold that an adoption order would be appropriate.
|
Proof - Matrimonial
Here the pursuer sought decree of divorce from the defender in respect that the marriage has broken irretrievably by reason of the defender's behaviour and the defender sought a capital sum of £350,000. The main disputerelated to the defender's claim for a capital sum. There was, however, agreement between the parties that the date of separation for the purposes of ascertaining the nature and extent of matrimonial property was 5 November 2001. There were two issues:- (1) whether the increase in ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |