This is a case about the rights of unmarried fathers to take part in children’s hearings under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It raises two distinct issues. The first concerns the kind of order made in the sheriff court which would be effective to give a father the right to take part in the children’s hearing. The second concerns the compatibility of the statutory scheme for participation in the children’s hearing with the rights of the father (and indeed the child) under the Europ ...
|
Mr and Mrs Agbaje were married for 38 years. Both Nigerian by birth, they had met in England in the 1960s and acquired UK citizenship in 1972. All five of their children were born (and all but one educated) in England, and in 1975 Mr Agbaje bought a property in England called “Lytton Road” in which their children stayed with a nanny. But for the majority of their married life Mr and Mrs Agbaje lived in Nigeria. They separated in 1999, at which point Mrs Agbaje came to live in Lytt ...
|
Appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 57. In this judgment the Supreme Court reformulates the approach a family court should take when exercising its discretion to decide whether to order a child to give live evidence in family proceedings. In so doing it removes the presumption or starting point of the current test, which is rarely if ever rebutted, that it is only in the exceptional case that a child should be so called.
|
Supreme Court Press Summary BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL This appeal concerns whether an English court has jurisdiction to determine the future level of contact between a child and his mother where the child does not habitually reside in an EU Member State. Under article 12.3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels II Revised”) parties are able to opt in to the jurisdiction of an EU court which would not otherwise have jurisdiction to determine a child’s future. This ...
|
Supreme Court Press Summary – 26 November 2009 Background Local authorities owe a variety of duties towards children in need, who may include unaccompanied minors coming here to seek asylum. Such children may be entitled to accommodation and other help which is different from, and rather better than, the services available to adults. So disputes may arise about whether a young person is or is not a child. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that it is ultimately for the courts ...
|
Supreme Court Press Summary - 19 November 2009 Background to the appeal H is a three year old child whose parents separated before his birth. From the date of his birth until very recently, H has lived with his maternal grandmother, GB. H’s mother, GLB, lived with her mother and H intermittently at GB’s home from the time he was born until July 2006. She left GB’s home then and has not returned. In November 2006, GB was granted, by consent, a residence order in respect of H. ...
|
In this case, when the two parents separated, the judge in the present case ordered the father to leave the family home by 20 September 2005 and provided that he and the mother were to have shared residence of three of their children. The order said that they should spend alternate weeks and half of their school holidays with each parent. The father had no other accommodation available to him and on 18 August 2005 applied to his local Council for assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 199 ...
|
In a judgment dismissing an appeal in relation to the police decisions on the protection of the Holy Cross School children Lord Hoffman made comments on the intervention of statutory bodies and NGO's on questions of general public importance noting that this intervention 'is of no assistance if it merely repeats points which the appellant or respondent has already made'.
|
This appeal concerns the right to marry protected by art.12 of the ECHR, one of the articles to which domestic effect is given by the Human Rights Act 1998. More specifically, the appeal concerns the control of that right by the Secretary of State under and pursuant to s.19 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The agreed issue is whether the scheme established by and under s.19 involves a disproportionate interference with (and therefore a breach of) the art.12 r ...
|
The question in this case is whether it is consistent with Convention rights as defined in s.1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a couple to be excluded from consideration as adoptive parents of a child on the ground only that they are not married. The woman is the natural mother of the child. The man is not the father but he and the woman have been living together for some years and treat the child as a member of the family. The legal obstacle to their adoption application is art. 14 of t ...
|
| 1 2 3 |