The pursuer and defender were respectively the father and mother of the child M (born 17 September 2006). Both parties had parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child. The pursuer sought a residence order, failing which he sought a contact order in his favour. The defender, who had previously abducted M and taken her to New Zealand for some 6 months in 2009, sought a residence order in her favour and a specific issue order to allow her to move to New Zealand. Following M’s abduc ...
|
Parties and Background This was an appeal against a permanence order granted in respect of a child, LSK. The appellants were the child’s parents, S and D. In May 2011 the court had determined that S and D had the right to have LSK live with them but that this would be detrimental to LSK’s welfare. Prior to this hearing, in June 2010, the court had determined that there was no person who had the right to have LSK live with them. Parties’ Submissions S and D submitted ...
|
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s refusal of an application for a permanence order under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. The order was sought by the petitioners and appellants, Aberdeenshire Council, in respect of the child CW (born 5th December 2008) and was opposed by the respondents, the child's natural parents.It was submitted for the petitioners that the Sheriff had erred in law and failed to address the relevant question in terms of section 84(5)(c) of the ...
|
In this appeal against an interlocutor of the Sheriff at Aberdeen, the appellants (the parents of child H.M.C.O.) appealed against the decision of the Sheriff to free their child for adoption, subject to a permanence order in terms of article 17(2) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 (Commencement No 4, Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2009 (the 2009 Order). At first instance, the appellants had argued that the proceedings were incompetent. The dispute centred ...
|
The application of a Father pursuant to the Hague Convention for the return of his 11 month old daughter to Poland was granted. The court considered the authorities on habitual residence and held that the child and mother had not become habitually resident in England and Wales.
|
The CA allowed an appeal against interim care orders removing children from the care of their Mother on the basis that the Judge had failed to rely on authorities as to interim orders and had treated the orders as final orders. However in the circumstances of the case where the children were at risk from the Father and there was concern about the Mother's ability to separate from him the CA after allowing the appeal put in place interim care orders under which the children would live with relati ...
|
The CA allowed the appeal of Coventry CC against an injunction imposed to prevent their removal of children from foster parents and placement with prospective adopters. It was held that the court had not properly considered the LA statutory rights by virtue of ss 21 and 38 ACA 2002 when making the injunction. On a subsidiary point the CA held that 'placement for adoption' took place at the time children went to live with adopters. The CA expressed their sympathy to the prospective adopters who h ...
|
The CA considered the nature and consequential effect of mirror orders in a case where a father who had a Malaysian order granting him custody of a child had sought mirror orders in the UK prior to bringing the child over for contact with his Mother. The CA allowed the Father's appeal against contact orders made in the High Court holding that no jurisdiction under Article 12.3 of Council Regulation (EC) N0 2201/2003 existed in this case.
|
The City of Edinburgh Council sought a Permanence Order in relation to the child I (aged 4), who was subject to a supervision requirement under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. S, the natural father, opposed the petition. On 1st September 2010, a children’s hearing decided to reduce contact between I and S from once a month to once every three months. S successfully appealed against that decision, with the Sheriff allowing contact to take place once a month. Following contact in January, Februa ...
|
The CA dismissed the appeal of a Husband against an ancillary relief order providing for him to make a lump sum payment of £3m to the Wife together with interim periodical payments. The CA did not accept that the judge had erred in her treatment of trust assets as available to the Husband or that the Judge had taken insufficient account of the Mother's new partner (who was described as 'cost neutral').
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |