‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during June 2016.’
Family Law Week, 15th July 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The parents of a toddler who died after doctors missed signs of sepsis were told not to “pick a fight with the NHS, you will lose” when they questioned the quality of his care. The revelation emerged following publication of a damning report that accused the organisations responsible of being incapable of accepting their shortcomings in the case.’
Daily Telegraph, 19th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A mother has been convicted of child cruelty after forcing her children to undergo gastric surgery they didn’t need in order to claim £375,000 in benefits.’
The Independent, 20th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Families of some of the British troops killed in Iraq have launched a public crowdfunding appeal to pay for lawyers to potentially sue those responsible.’
BBC News, 19th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The claimant foreign nationals, NA, KJ, WM and MY, who had resided for significant periods of time in the United Kingdom, were convicted of offences to which they were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of 12 months or more. As a result, they fell within the definition of foreign criminals in section 32 of the UK Border Act 2007, in respect of whom the Secretary of State was liable to make a deportation order, subject to the exceptions in section 33, which included where deportation would breach the offender’s rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The claimants in each case made representations against their deportation in reliance on their rights to a private and family life under article 8 of the Convention. Paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules, as they applied between July 2012 and 27 July 2014 (“the 2012 Rules”), provided that when assessing a claim that deportation would be contrary to an offender’s rights under article 8 of the Convention, the Secretary of State was required to consider whether the circumstances in paragraph 399 and 399A of the 2012 Rules existed, and that if they did not, it was only in exceptional circumstances that the public interest in deportation would be outweighed by other factors. The circumstances: (1) in paragraph 399 were that the claimant had a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child dependent on the claimant or a partner and it was not reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom or there were insurmountable obstacles to family life with the partner continuing outside the United Kingdom; and (2) in paragraph 399A were the long residence of the claimant in the United Kingdom and lack of family, social or cultural ties with the country to which he was to be removed. Pararaphs 399 and 399A applied to offenders sentenced to imprisonment for at least 12 months but less than four years (“medium offenders”) but not to those sentenced to periods of four years or more (“serious offenders”). ‘
WLR Daily, 16th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re X (A Child) (Reporting Restrictions: Guidance) [2016] EWHC 1668 (Fam)
‘Those applying for reporting restriction orders in family proceedings need to comply meticulously with the obligation to adequately notify the media in accordance with the FPR Practice Direction 12I—Applications for Reporting Restriction Orders and associate Cafcass practice note (paras 10, 25–28).’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 24 June 2016 the right to live in the United Kingdom for over 3 million people of its people was suddenly cast into doubt. If generous provision is not made for them we are looking at the biggest mass expulsion of population since 1290, when Edward I infamously ordered the Jews of England into exile.’
Free Movement, 12th July 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘New crematoria rules are being drafted after families were denied their baby’s ashes, the government has said.’
BBC News, 7th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The children of a renowned interior designer, who worked on the QE2, Claridge’s and the Savoy Hotel are locked in a £20m court battle over his fortune.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The parents of young children who died on a controversial cardiac ward have spoken of their fears that they might not get the answers they crave ahead of the publication of an independent inquiry into their sons’ care.’
The Guardian, 26th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A retired company director has paid £4,500 in costs after being reprimanded by a judge for vandalising his own mother’s gravestone with a hammer.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A senior judge in the family court took “unwarranted” extra steps in reuniting a man with a violent and criminal past with his young daughter 11 months before he beat her to death, the author of a serious case review has said.’
The Guardian, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Last year 32,446 people subject to immigration control in the UK were detained by the government. Some had entered the country irregularly and were quickly removed. Others were detained pending removal or deportation. More than half of them were released back into the community, meaning that their detention had served no purpose.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th June 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
In re A (A Child) (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management) [2016] EWFC 25
‘A, a baby born in England to Latvian parents, was relinquished at birth for adoption and quickly placed with foster parents who were approved to adopt. On the understanding that there was no one within the extended natural family, either in England or in Latvia, in a position to care for A, and with the consent of the birth parents given in accordance with sections 19 and 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the local authority proceeded to convert A’s short-term arrangements to an adoptive placement and notified the Latvian central authority of A’s situation. The foster parents, with whom A had lived for much of his life, applied to adopt him. The Latvian central authority, having made its own enquiries of relatives in Latvia, identified the maternal grandmother as a potential long-term carer for A, had completed a favourable preliminary suitability assessment and commissioned a full suitability assessment. The central authority opposed the adoption of A in England and submitted its concerns that the approach of the English courts towards adoption cases placed insufficient weight on the rights of a child to grow up in his inherited culture and was therefore potentially contrary to articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 and a breach of articles 8 and 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. The birth mother, who had deliberately not informed her wider family in Latvia of the proposed adoption, continued to support adoption by the foster parents, maintaining her opinion that an education and upbringing in England would be in A’s best interests and that her mother would find it difficult physically and financially to care for A. At a case management hearing, the children’s guardian appointed for A recommended an adjournment to enable completion of the grandmother’s assessment. In circumstances where the prospective adopters, the birth parents and the local authority all supported the adoption, where factors from the welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act pointed towards adoption, and where a delay in making a decision was likely to prejudice A’s welfare, the issue before the judge was whether he should make an adoption order without having considered the substantial assessment of the suitability of the maternal grandmother in Latvia as A’s long-term carer.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Is the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v NGN [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] All ER (D) 135 (May), as Lord Toulson suggests, out of touch with reality? Sara Mansoori, barrister at Matrix Chambers, considers the wider consequences of the case and suggests that even when information is in the public domain, the law of privacy can prevent repetition of that information where such repetition can cause unwarranted distress.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th May 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexhange.co.uk
‘As a new inquest approaches into the death of their autistic sister, family continues to fight for a law to boost the rights of relatives.’
The Guardian, 1st June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024