‘A baby boy who survived a late abortion carried out because his mother’s life was in danger has been described as a “little miracle” by a judge.
Details of the boy’s survival emerged in a Family Court judgment which concluded that the boy should live with his father’s family as his mother said she was unable to look after him.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th January 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A man who “brutally” battered to death his ex-wife to get custody of their young son has been given a life sentence for murder.’
BBC News, 5th January 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
In re S (A Child) (Abduction: Hearing the Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1557; [2014] WLR (D) 522
‘Where the court was exercising it’s inherent jurisdiction relating to the abduction or retention of a child where neither the Hague Convention on the International Aspects of Child Abduction 1980, nor article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels II revised”) applied, the same principle of effective access to justice for a child as applied to cases involving the Convention and the Regulation was engaged and the court was obliged to consider whether and how to hear the child concerned.’
WLR Daily, 4th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
L v M (R and another intervening) (Case C-656/13) EU:C:2014:2364; [2014] WLR (D) 480
‘Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 allowed, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a member state which was not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings were pending before the court chosen. Article 12(3)(b) meant that it could not be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility had been “accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings” where the defendant in those proceedings subsequently brought a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleaded the lack of jurisdiction of that court.’
WLR Daily, 12th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A senior family court judge has condemned the injustice of the newly pared-back legal aid system after an illiterate mother of four, with poor sight and hearing, was forced to represent herself in a court hearing over the custody of her children.’
The Guardian, 2nd November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A father has won custody of his daughter after his former partner falsely accused him of sexually abusing their child. The man was investigated by police and social workers after the woman said her daughter had made “disclosures of sexual abuse”. But Judge Jane Miller has ruled that the girl, now nine, should live with her father after concluding the woman’s allegations were untrue.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th October 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘”My daughter started school last month and I don’t even know what school she goes to.”
These are the words of a father who has not seen his daughter, now aged four, for two years.’
BBC News, 13th October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
E v B (Case C-436/13) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2246; [2014] WLR (D) 405
‘Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which had been prorogued, under article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (OJ 2003 L338, p 1), in favour of a court of a member state before which proceedings had been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceased following a final judgment in those proceedings
WLR Daily, 1st October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In this series written for Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, Navpreet Virk and No5 member Richard Gibbs present the opposing arguments surrounding the manner in which the youth courts treat juveniles convicted of criminal offences and examine the countervailing arguments and policies. In the first of this four part series, Nav Virk sets out the general philosophical underpinnings of the current policy approach.’
No. 5 Chambers, 27th August 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘In this series written for Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, Navpreet Virk and No5 member Richard Gibbs present the opposing arguments surrounding the manner in which the youth courts treat juveniles convicted of criminal offences and examine the countervailing arguments and policies. In the first of this four part series, Nav Virk sets out the general philosophical underpinnings of the current policy approach.’
No. 5 Chambers, 21st August 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘For centuries, the dog has held the title of man’s best friend, but what happens when the same animal is also the woman’s best friend? A legal academic has called for the UK to revolutionise the way in which pets are treated in divorce custody battles.’
The Independent, 29th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Lawyers warn of ‘huge delays’ in family court cases as number of parents facing prospect of representing themselves jumps 48 per cent’
Daily Telegraph, 7th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Almost half of all parents fighting to get access to their children through the courts are being made to do so without legal advice, family magistrates warn today.’
The Independent, 1st June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The phrase “rights of custody,” within the meaning of articles 3 and 5(a) of the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and article 2(9)(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, was not limited to rights which were already legally recognised and enforceable but was to be interpreted purposively as including a reference to a wider category, termed “inchoate rights”, the existence of which would have been legally recognised if the matter had arisen before the particular act of removal or retention in question.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of K (A child) (Northern Ireland) [2014] UKSC 29 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 15th May 2014
In re KP (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody): [2014] EWCA Civ 554; [2014] WLR (D) 181
‘The role of a judge meeting a child who was the subject of abduction proceedings under the Hague Convention should be largely that of a passive recipient of whatever communication the child wished to transmit, which the judge should not probe or seek to test.’
WLR Daily, 1st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Cuts in legal aid are creating chaos in the family courts, according to legal experts, who warn that the resulting delays are having a serious impact on the children of warring parents.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Man and woman embroiled in years of legal action over children suggested by judge to “sit down around the kitchen table”.’
Daily Telegraph, 19th February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The High Court of England and Wales had jurisdiction to order the ‘return’ to this country of a small child who had never lived or even been here, on the basis that he had British nationality.”
WLR Daily, 9th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024