“The Court of Appeal has taken the unusual step of reversing a denial of contact order, by reviewing the question of the proportionality of the order in relation to the children’s right to family life under Article 8.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Case C-5/12); [2013] WLR (D) 354
“Council Directives 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding and 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions did not preclude a national measure which provided that the father of a child, who was an employed person, was entitled, with the consent of the mother, who was also an employed person, to take maternity leave for the period following the compulsory leave of six weeks which the mother had to take after childbirth except where her health would be at risk, whereas a father of a child who was an employed person was not entitled to take such leave where the mother of his child was not an employed person and was not covered by a State social security scheme.”
WLR Daily, 19th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
What Are Care Proceedings For? (PDF)
Zenith Chambers Munkman Lecture, 16th September 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“A vegetarian mother who stopped her five year-old son from seeing his father because she feared he might feed him meat must let him see the child or lose custody, a judge ruled.”
Daily Telegraph, 11th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Extra protection for 17-year-olds in police custody will be put in place by the end of October, the Home Office has said.”
BBC News, 22nd August 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“On 31st July the Court of Appeal delivered a reserved judgement in the case of PM –v- MB & anr [2013] EWCA Civ 969, in which the Father of the child concerned sought to appeal a County Court decision refusing him parental responsibility, allowing indirect email contact only, and, section 91(14) CA ’89, prohibiting any further application by him without leave for a period of two years.”
Sovereign Chambers, 5th August 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija and another (Case C-7/12); [2013] WLR (D) 247
“In circumstances where a much higher number of women than men took parental leave, Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (as amended) and the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, contained in the Annex to Council Direction 96/34/EC precluded a situation where (1) as part of an assessment of workers in the context of abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties, a worker who had taken parental leave was assessed in his or her absence on the basis of assessment principles and criteria which placed the worker who had taken leave in a less favourable position compared to workers who did not take parental leave; and (2) a female worker who had been transferred to another post at the end of her parental leave following that assessment was dismissed due to the abolishment of that new post, where it was not impossible for the employer to allow her to return to her former post or where the work assigned to her was not equivalent or similar and consistent with her employment contract or employment relationship because, at the time of the transfer, the employer was informed that the new post was due to be abolished.”
WLR Daily, 20th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“In Harrow Council v AM [2013] UKUT 0157 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal considered a local authority’s obligations where a parent chose mainstream education for a child with complex special educational needs. The decision also discusses two important procedural issues, namely when a First-tier Tribunal can rely on its own knowledge without seeking views from the parties and its powers on review.”
Education Law Blog, 6th May 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
In re C (A Child) (Adoption: Placement order) [2013] EWCA Civ 431; [2013] WLR (D) 151
“Guidance as to the steps to be followed where an application to the Court of Appeal was made for permission to appeal against the making of a placement order, or of any order consequent upon the making of a placement order, in adoption proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 25th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re C (A Child) (Adoption: Placement order): [2013] EWCA Civ 431; [2013] WLR (D) 151
“Guidance as to the steps to be followed where an application to the Court of Appeal was made for permission to appeal against the making of a placement order, or of any order consequent upon the making of a placement order, in adoption proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 25th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A ‘cruelly deceived’ father whose son was put up for adoption without him even
knowing of his existence has had his hopes of gaining custody dashed following a
court ruling.”
Daily Telegraph, 25th April 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A teenager has won a High Court victory over the Home Secretary Theresa May’s policy of treating 17-year-olds taken into custody as adults – depriving them of protections offered to those aged 16 and under.”
The Independent, 25th April 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Senior police officers are backing a change to the law so that 17-year-olds are treated as juveniles in custody and their parents are informed if they are arrested.”
The Guardian, 24th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“This was a successful claim for judicial review brought by a mother in care proceedings in respect of her two children who were removed from the care of the paternal grandparents. To that extent, it is a first. It concerns the duty on the Local Authority to consult with parents when an Interim Care Order is in place.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Where do parents and prospective parents stand after the very recent decision in the case of S v D and E? What can parenting lesbian mothers and the men who donate sperm to enable them to have children expect if there is a disagreement between them as to the role of biological fathers in their children’s lives?”
Zenith Chambers, 14th February 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“Ben Boucher-Giles of Fountain Chambers considers the Supreme Court’s judgment in J (Children) and considers how it fits into the wider picture of findings as they relate to threshold.”
Family Law Week, 25th February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings considers three important recent judgments in Children private law proceedings.”
Family Law Week, 13th February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“Sperm donors who know the parents to whom they have donated can apply for contact with their biological children, a court has ruled. Previously this was not allowed. The ruling has major implications for anyone who has a child conceived using the sperm of someone they know and for those considering starting a family this way.”
The Guardian, 31st January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023