Family Law Hub

Residence

Latest updates

  • The judge was entitled to say that this was an appropriate case for a shared residence order and that the mother should move from the North East to the South East such that shared care could work. Judgment, 14/12/2018, free
  • Father's appeal against orders to facilitate the return of his 15 year old daughter from Thailand back to the UK was refused on the basis that concerns relating to her estrangement from her mother, her apparent lack of education and the lack of any clarity about her living circumstances had not been alleviated. Judgment, 19/09/2018, free
  • In brief: The mother (“M”) had applied for a residence order for her son in February 2014 after the father (“F”) took the child to Chechnya. Based mainly on a positive report on the father by the local childcare authority, the district court dismissed M’s residence order application and granted one in favour of F, although he had not requested it. M’s subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. It was then revealed that the report prepared by the childcare authority included incorrect and incomplete information. Following F’s death in 2014, the child was returned to M in 2016. The ECtHR found that the domestic courts’ examination of the family’s circumstances had not been thorough enough, which had not allowed the best interests of the child to be established. Overall, there had been a violation of M’s rights under Article 8. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • In brief: The ECtHR found that the father (“F”) had been able to present his case fully to the domestic courts and that the courts’ reasons for their decision not to order that his child live with him had been relevant and sufficient. In particular, it was not convinced by F’s argument that the judge in his case had believed that small children should always be raised by their mothers. It did not find any violations of his rights under the Convention. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against a decision that the child should live with the father in Canada was dismissed despite her having attended therapy sessions to modify her behaviour. The Court of Appeal held that when the Family Court is considering reallocating a case to the High Court, the parties should be informed and be permitted to express their views on reallocation and its implications, including the impact on the destination of any appeal. Judgment, 26/04/2018, 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