Cases Archive
FK v ML (Chlid’s Objections) [2016] EWHC 517 (Fam)
Sir Peter Singer orders a 13 year old child’s return to Dublin, despite his strongly held objections to such return, in proceedings brought by the father under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980
W (Children) (Abduction: Striking Out) [2015] EWHC 4002 (Fam)
Application by the mother at the PTR to strike out the father’s application for the return of two children to Spain and, in the alternative, for permission to instruct a psychologist to assess the mother’s fear of the father. Both applications were refused by Baker J
Re CB (A Child) (No. 2) (Adoption Proceedings: Vienna Convention) [2016] 1 FLR 1286, [2016] 2 WLR 470
The Court of Appeal provides definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa, the Vienna Convention and domestic adoption jurisprudence. The Latvian Ministry of Justice intervened in the appeal in opposition to the Local Authority and in support of the mother. The mother’s appeal was dismissed. Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority.
NH (1996 Child Protection Convention: Habitual Residence) [2015] EWHC 2299 (Fam)
Consideration of jurisdiction to make public law orders in respect of a child. Cobb J found jurisdiction of necessity.
Re K (1980 Hague Convention) (Lithuania) [2015] EWCA Civ 720
Appeal by a mother against an order that her daughter be returned to Lithuania. Appeal dismissed.
Re CB (A Child) (No. 1) (Adoption Application: Permission To Oppose) [2016] 1 FLR 1261
Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority in an application, made by the mother, for permission to oppose an adoption. The mother, supported by the Latvian authorities, applied for a transfer of the proceedings to the Latvian court under Art 15 Brussels II Revised, permission to oppose the adoption and contact. All three applications were refused by Moylan J
C v S [2014] EWHC 3799 (Fam)
Father’s application for the summary return of his son to Australia. Application granted.
Re G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 680; [2014] WLR (D) 220
The issue for determination was whether a consent order providing for temporary leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction was final and brought proceedings to an end. The Court of Appeal held that this question should be determined as things stood at the time the order was made and could not depend on what happened next in the family’s life or even on what would be a sensible and practical way of going about things. Appeal dismissed.