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. ...
|
On 6 February 2008 a decision was made at a Children's Hearing for East Renfrewshire in respect of a child, MM, who was born on 13 November 2006. The mother of MM, SK, appealed aginst the decision of the Authority Reporter for East Renfrewshire under the provisions of section 51 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. During the appeal before the Sheriff two devolution issues were raised on behalf of the appellant and the Sheriff referred the devolution issues under and in terms of Paragraph 7 of S ...
|
The CA allowed the appeal of a husband against a judgment in favour of the Wife that Barder principles were engaged where the value of shares owned by him dramatically increased after a consent order settling the parties Ancillary Relief claims had been entered into. The CA held that Barder principles did not apply to the case where the Wife was aware that the value of the shares was likely to increase. The CA inter alia stated that I v I (Ancillary Relief: Disclosure) [2008] EWHC 1167(Fam); [20 ...
|
The CA granted permission to appeal and allowed an appeal against a case management decision in respect of Care proceedings taking place in the High Court. The CA overturned the refusal to permit the instruction of a paediatric pathologist to review a post mortem on a child. The court re-emphasised it's ability to act on a urgent basis where necessary and urged the profession to utilise this in cases which require an urgent response.
|
The CA considered the issue of disclosure to the police of concessions made within care proceedings as to the causation of severe head injuries to a child. The trial judge had refused the application of the Chief Constable for disclosure of the concession document and others. The CA allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the County Court for further consideration on the grounds the Judge had not been referred to the revocation of Rule 4.23 of the FPR 1991 and its replacement by Rule 10.2 ...
|
Appeal by Stated Case under section 51(11) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995:- On 20 May 2008 the respondent referred the case of N M, born on 15 May 2008, to a Children's Hearing for Renfrewshire that in terms of section 52(2)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 he was likely:- "(i) to suffer unnecessarily; or (ii) be impaired seriously in his health or development, due to a lack of parental care." On 28 November 2008, the sheriff, after hearing evidence, found the grounds of referral ...
|
The HL held that a judge was entitled to decide that it was beyond his jurisdiction to order a further period therapeutic treatment for a mother in care proceedings. A s.38(6) order could only be properly made if it was for a medical or psychiatric assessment of the child. It was not appropriate to use s.38(6) where in reality the focus of the work to be done is therapy or treatment aimed at bringing about a long term change in a parent’s capacity to parent.
|
| 1 2 3 4 |