Family Law Hub

B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35

Judgment, published: 22/06/2008

Items referring to this

  • Mother applied for orders including a child arrangements order (that the children live with her and that there is no contact ordered with Father), a specific issue order (that the children are to be known by different names), a prohibited steps order and a s91 (14) order (restricting Father from making further applications to the court). Judgment, 28/07/2016, free
  • A case involving cross-applications for residence and which led to a fact finding hearing as to whether or not C's father had sexually abused her Judgment, 10/07/2012, free
  • Mother applied to have contact arrangements overturned after making allegations that the father and paternal grandfather had abused the children while they were visiting them in Sweden. Father cross-applied to have the children live with him in Sweden. The court found that the mother had alienated the children against the father and that a s37 report would be prepared by the LA with a view to the children being placed in foster care before a possible relocation to Sweden. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • On the evidence presented before the court, and judged by the doctrines of common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, the court found that the claimant had not proved her case that there had been an agreement between her and her cohabitee that she would share any profit after the farm, which was legally owned by the defendent, was sold. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • The judge gave permission for the father to remove his 3 daughters permanently to Nigeria following a finding that the mother had made false claims in respect of FGM in an effort to bolster an application for asylum in the United Kingdom. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • The father of the child, whose main carer is a friend of the deceased mother, was seeking to become the child's main carer. Alternatively, he made an application for an order attaching a warning notice to the original Child Arrangements Order so that he can enforce contact as against the carer. Judgment, 29/09/2017, free
  • Contact case in which the judge ruled that F should only have telephone contact with the children as FaceTime and Skype were deemed as face to face contact. Judgment, 24/03/2016, free
  • Applications by two men (who were in a committed relationship and where one of them was the biological father of the child who had been born as the result of artificial or assisted conception), for parental responsibility and for residence and contact; and cross-applications by the mother for residence and contact. The judge decided that the two men should have PR for the child. Judgment, 05/05/2015, free
  • Judgment, 20/02/2013, free
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal against a leave to remove order. In brief: The father (“F”) sought to appeal a leave to remove order in proceedings where the mother (“M”) had been able to establish that he had acted in an angry, violent or otherwise inappropriate manner towards the child. The trial judge’s approach could not be criticised. It had been welfare-based, full weight had been given to the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with F and F’s proposals had not been ignored. Judgment, 05/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 20/02/2013, free
  • Application by mother, opposed by the father, for permission to remove child to Angola permanently. Application granted but subject to conditions. Judgment, 17/06/2015, free
  • A case involving allegations made by a vulnerable teenager, X, against her uncle. The issue was to consider whether the uncle and his daughter, A, should be permitted to resume a normal and unrestricted relationship with one another. Judgment, 25/07/2013, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2013, free
  • Contact case where M had earlier removed the child from the family home, direct contact was given to the F and then M alleged that the child had been abused while in F's care. The judge dismissed in totality the allegations against the F. Judgment, 28/07/2013, free
  • Judgment, 14/02/2011, free
  • A private law children case in which the issues that arose related to the role and practice of local authorities when involved in allegations of abuse by one parent against another and the care and objectivity that is needed to adequately fulfil their statutory duties when investigating such matters. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
  • In brief: A successful application by the mother (“M”) to prevent the father (“F”) from taking the child to his country of birth (Guinea) to visit his family because of the very high prevalence of FGM in that country (around 96% according to the UN's analysis and the expert evidence) and the likelihood that F's family would want to have the child "cut" or mutilated as a female child of the family. An FGMPO was made, lasting until the child’s 17th birthday with associated directions. Judgment, 09/03/2018, free

Published: 22/06/2008


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item