‘Damian Stuart, Barrister, FOURTEEN, re-visits Baroness Hale’s seminal speech in Re W (Children) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) in the light of Lord Justice McFarlane’s recent judgment in Re E (A Child).’
Family Law Week, 22nd July 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Resolving neighbour disputes using iPhone evidence and a video hearing might be more effective than the parties travelling several miles to court, a senior government official has said, outlining significant developments to modernise the justice system.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 21st July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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
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
A Local Authority v D and others [2016] EWHC 1438 (Fam)
‘The applicant local authority applied, pursuant to paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989, for a six-month extension of a supervision order made in its favour under section 31 of the 1989 Act in respect of three children from the travelling community. The application was dated the day that the original order expired but was not issued until the following day.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Alex Laing, barrister of Coram Chambers, considers the interrelationship of the inherent jurisdiction and secure accommodation.’
Family Law week, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The President of the Family Division has ordered the re-opening of a finding of fact hearing in care proceedings where a boy was later adopted.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.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
‘The activities of unregulated, untrained and uninsured McKenzie Friends in the family courts is to come under the microscope with the commissioning of field research by the Bar Council into how they handle court work.’
The Bar Council, 10th June 2016
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
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
‘Matthew Warmoth, pupil barrister at Fourteen, finds that the court can do little to protect children from CSE when the exploiter is not a party to proceedings and there has been no police caution or conviction for a sexual or violent offence.’
Family Law Week, 4th May 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The high court has ruled that the three children of a Leicester woman who tried to take them to Isis-controlled territory must live with their grandmother.’
The Guardian, 3rd May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Marie Crawford, barrister, Becket Chambers considers the disconnection between theory and practice in making applications to adduce expert evidence.’
Family Law Week, 21st April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Michael Allum, Solicitor with The International Family Law Group LLP, explains how the Central Family Court’s pilot scheme for electronic filing of documents will work.’
Family Law Week, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Spencer v Anderson (Paternity Testing) [2016] EWHC 851 (Fam). A fascinating case in the Family Division throws up a number of facts that some may find surprising. One is that this is the first time the courts in this country have been asked to direct post-mortem scientific testing to establish paternity. The other is that DNA is not covered by the Human Tissue Act, because genetic material does not contain human cells. One might wonder why the statute doesn’t, given that DNA is the instruction manual that makes the human tissue that it covers – but maybe updating the 2004 law to cover genetic material would create more difficulties than it was designed to resolve.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
In re G (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam)
‘The applicant, X, who was at all material times in a same-sex relationship with Y, was the biological mother of twins, born as a result of IVF treatment provided by a licensed fertility clinic to Y, the gestational mother and the twins’ legal parent. Y was at all material times in a civil partnership with, though separated from, another woman who was not a party to the proceedings. Y, as the gestational mother, should have signed Form WP, and X, as her partner, should have signed Form PP. In fact, and as a result of what was accepted to have been errors by the clinic, Y completed and signed a Form PP and X completed and signed a Form WP. A similar mistake was made in relation to the Form IC signed by both Y and X. X, supported by Y, sought a declaration pursuant to section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was, in accordance with section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the legal parent of the twins and in the circumstances it was common ground that X was entitled to the relief she sought. The issues were: (1) whether that was a conclusion that the court could come to simply by a process of construction or whether the proper form of order was a decree of rectification and (2) arising out of the fact that Y was at all material times in a civil partnership with another woman, the potential impact of section 42(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 which provided: “If at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or of her artificial insemination, W was a party to a civil partnership or a marriage with another woman, then subject to section 45(2) to (4), the other party to the civil partnership or marriage is to be treated as a parent of the child unless it is shown that she did not consent to the placing in W of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or to her artificial insemination … ”’
WLR Daily, 6th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Health Executive of Ireland v Z and others [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam)
‘The applicant sought and obtained an order in the Irish High Court authorising the treatment in a specialist unit in an English hospital of an Irish child aged 15 who had developed a very serious eating disorder and who required treatment which could not be provided in her home country. Her doctors, supported by her parents but against her wishes, made arrangements for her to be admitted and treated in a specialist unit in an English hospital which was able to provide the treatment required. The applicant applied to the English High Court for an order, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, for recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order. At an initial hearing the court made an interim emergency order under inherent jurisdiction permitting the child’s emergency admission for treatment in the hospital in England. At a further hearing on notice a number of issues arose for determination, including whether article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“the Regulation”) applied to the case, whether the court had power under its inherent jurisdiction to make an interim emergency order for the recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order pending an application under FPR Pt 31, whether recognition should be refused on any of the grounds set out in article 23 of the Regulation, and whether the child should be represented in the proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 8th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024