‘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
‘The proposed online court is a “pragmatic first step” on the road to a fully integrated online and conventional court service, an influential body has predicted. Professor Richard Susskind (pictured), who leads a panel of experts on digital dispute resolution, said proposals by Lord Justice Briggs for an online court for small claims were to be welcomed.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th April 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDACs) save the state money, with the London FDAC alone generating estimated gross savings of £1.29m to public sector bodies over five years, research has suggested.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
In re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption): [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam)
‘In two cases babies, JL and AO, were born in England to mothers from Eastern Europe but relinquished at birth for adoption. In the case of JL the child, whose Estonian mother worked in England and whose putative father lived in Estonia, was accommodated by the local authority with the mother’s consent pursuant to an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and was placed with foster carers. The mother gave her written consent to his adoption and the putative father, maternal family and the Estonian authorities all supported his adoption in this country. The local authority sought a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the case of AO, the Hungarian parents working in England wished the child to be adopted in this country. AO had been removed at birth and placed with foster carers and had been made a ward of court. The local authority, children’s guardian and Hungarian authorities sought the child’s return to Hungary so that she could be placed for adoption there. Common issues arose as to what jurisdiction the court had to make orders facilitating such placements, (ii) the factors which had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures to be followed and (iii) where a child born to nationals of a foreign country had been placed voluntarily in the care of a local authority, with a view to adoption or otherwise, whether the authority was under an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 to inform the consular officials of that country about the placement. In the case of JL, the further issues arose whether the court had jurisdiction to make a placement order and what order, if any, should be made. In the case of AO, the further issues arose whether it was open to the court either to transfer jurisdiction to Hungary under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels IIA”) or to make an order permitting the local authority to send AO to Hungary; and what order, if any, the court should make.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Schemes for judicial and CAFCASS involvement in the pre-proceedings phase of some types of care case will be piloted in selected courts shortly, the President of the Family Division has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Disagreement between top judges over whether details of couples’ lives can be publicised “needs to be dealt with”, says Mr Justice Moor’
Daily Telegraph, 28th February 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Sarah Lucy Cooper, barrister, of Thomas More Chambers considers the perils of relying on undertakings in cases with a foreign element.’
Family Law Week, 18th February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘According to the Law Society Gazette, the outcome of more than 2,000 may have been voided by the Form E software fault. Justice Minister Shailesh Vara MP has indicated, in a statement to Parliament, that the assets of more than 3,600 couples were miscalculated.’
Family Law Week, 15 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Habitual residence lies at the heart of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Hague Convention”), and is the cornerstone of jurisdiction in international child law. Yet despite the centrality of the concept, its definition and application have always left much room for argument; and although it is often described as “a question of fact”, it has generated large volumes of authority at the highest level.’
Family Law Week, 14 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A family court judge has made decisions about the future of a teenage girl whose parents took opposites sides after her brother went on trial accused of raping her.’
Independent, 16 February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Convicted sex criminal, named only as ‘Q’, was given taxpayer funding on human rights grounds to fight lack of contact with son.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st February 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Association of Lawyers for Children and the National Association of Guardians ad Litem and Reporting Officers respond to recent guidance given in the Central Family Court on the need for guardians to justify their attendance at care hearings save in specified circumstances.’
Family Law Week, 31st January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025