Family Law Hub

Residence

Latest updates

  • The judge had ordered a change of residence for the son, but there had been direct communication between the judge and the National Youth Advocacy Service without the parents' knowledge, including a telephone conversation during a break in the hearing. Newton J understood how the judge reached the conclusions which she did, but the hearing was fundamentally flawed and the appeal was allowed. Judgment, 26/06/2019, free
  • The father applied for the summary return to Germany of his two-year-old daughter, after the mother did not bring her back from a holiday. However, the father had not applied in the German courts for custody or contact, nor had the mother applied for custody, and Mostyn J criticised them for instead "devoting all their forensic energy to fighting this procedural battle". He found that the father had acquiesced in Article 13.1(a) terms to the daughter's continued living in the UK, and it would be precipitate to order her summary return before the matter had been brought before a German court. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free
  • An order had been made transferring the boy's home to that of his father in Northern Ireland, because maintaining the placement with his mother and grandmother would cause him emotional harm. The situation did not rise to the level of parental alienation, but the child was unable to speak positively of his father in the maternal home. The mother appealed, arguing that there had been procedural irregularity, the decision to transfer residence was premature, and the conclusions on the balance of harm were wrong or insufficiently evidenced. Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, found that none of the challenges made on her behalf had been sustained. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free
  • The father sought an order for the summary return of the daughter to Israel. The mother claimed that this would subject the daughter to a grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. MacDonald J disagreed. Asked to consider previous findings involving the same father, he said that the court should be cautious about importing judicial observations made in the context of a different relationship and factual framework. He considered that the mother's actions constituted a premeditated and blatant act of child abduction, intended to circumvent the due process of the Israeli courts, and ordered the daughter's summary return in time for the new school term. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
  • The court concluded that the child was not of sufficient understanding to conduct an appeal, in relation to who she lived with, without a children's Guardian. Judgment, 19/03/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Piers Pressdee QC of 29 Bedford Row reviews the major developments within the private children law field in the last year. He focusses on the case-law, identifying the key decisions and seeking to set that case-law within context. Webcast, 24/02/2016, members only
  • 6 questions on the webinar which was recorded on 14 January 2015 CPD course, 21/01/2015, members only
  • Webinar recorded on 15 January 2015. Dafydd Griffiths of 29 Bedford Row reviews the private children law cases of 2014 and picks out some themes to look out for in 2015. Webcast, 15/01/2015, members only
  • Training notes to accompany Piers Pressdee QC's webinar on Private Children Law, recorded on 15 October 2013 Training note, 24/10/2013, members only
  • 6 questions relating to a webinar by Piers Pressdee QC of 29 Bedford Row, recorded on 15 October 2013. This course, once successfully passed, will count towards 1.5 hours of accredited CPD. CPD course, 22/10/2013, members only

Latest sources

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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