‘A three-year-old boy whose father tried to prevent him receiving life-saving hospital treatment will have a bone marrow transplant on Thursday following an emergency ruling by a High Court judge.
The Independent, 4th December 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Men are too often mocked in the work place for wanting to go part time or leaving early to pick up their children, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister has said, as she announced detailed plans for new mums and dads to share a year of parental leave after the birth of a child.”
The Guardian, 29th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
In re W (A Child); In re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177; [2013] WLR (D) 384
“Guidance on how the Court of Appeal should approach applications for permission to appeal and appeals arising from decisions of family judges refusing parents leave in accordance with section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose the making of adoption orders in relation to their children where such decisions were delivered before the decision in In re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; [2013] WLR (D) 348.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The High Court has ruled that two sisters must receive the MMR vaccine against their wishes and the wishes of their mother. This was an application by the father for a declaration and a specific issue order concerning his daughters both receive the MMR vaccination. This was opposed by their mother.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Andrew Pack, care lawyer with Brighton & Hove City Council, considers the effect on adoption of the Court of Appeal’s landmark judgment in Re B-S.”
Family Law Week, 11th October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings and Nicola Harries of Baxter Harries Solicitors draw lessons from new guidance in adoption cases, set out by the Court of Appeal in Re B-S in which they acted for the respondent.”
Family Law week, 26th September 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“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
© Inner Temple Library 2024