The Court of Protection considered issues of borderline capacity within the context of Forced Marriage Protection Orders.
|
The court considered Art. 8 and applied a purposive construction to statute in an application for a parental order pursuant to s.54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in a situation where a surrogacy arrangement had been entered into by a husband and wife and the husband has died after the application for a s.54 order but before the hearing. The child had been joined as a party and parental orders were made.
|
This case is interesting for its use of the dicta in Miller in an Inheritance Act context. The CA upheld a first instance judgment conferring on a widow the right to occupy the home for life and half the proceeds of sale (the other half being held by her step son), the whole of the residuary estate and the agreement of the step son to pay half the insurance and the structural repairs of the property in substitution for the sum of £8,000 and the right to occupy the former matrimonial home left t ...
|
The CA dismissed a mother's appeal against the refusal of a residential assessment under s.38(6). The CA considered recent case law in respect of the fairness of proceedings and the Public Law Outline in coming to the decision that the Judge's decision had been well within her discretion.
|
The CA struck out a paragraph within a preamble providing that no fact finding hearing in relation to the maternity of a 15 year old child subject to care proceedings as she refused a DNA test. The CA struck out the paragraph as the issue needed to be addressed but made it clear that it would not require a fact finding hearing for a clear inference to be drawn. The CA further noted that the county court would not be bound by the findings of the Immigration Tribunal in respect of maternity.
|
The CA allowed a father's appeal against an order allowing a mother to relocate to Canada with the couple's two children. Although all three judges allowed the appeal two of the three judges considered that Payne should not be applied to cases involving shared residence orders while Black LJ took the view that all the facts of each individual case needed to be considered.
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |