The court allowed a Husband’s appeal against an ancillary relief order in which he received no Mesher charge over the Wife’s property. The court considered the effect of a marriage settlement entered into by the parties prior to their marriage, the impact of Granatino and the source of the parties’ assets before ordering a charge of 33% (increased to 35% to include the Husband’s costs of appeal).

The court considered a non-traditional family set up where 2 siblings lived with their biological mother and her female partner and their biological Father who had PR lived with his male partner. The court had previously found the elder child in particular to be suffering harm as a result of the lack of agreement between the parties as to the role the men should play in the lives of the children. The court ordered monthly staying contact between the men and the younger child and ordered the matter to be reviewed in 12 months.

The court held that a Mother’s arrangement of the removal of a child to Italy in breach of a PSO which had been served on her constituted a wrongful removal and that therefore the child remained habitually resident in the UK for the purposes of Brussells II Revised. A man claiming to be the child’s father had obtained the PSO notwithstanding his lack of parental responsibility or leave to apply for s.8 orders.

Moor J allowed in part a Husband’s appeal from an ancillary relief judgment in a small money case. He discharged the orders for periodical payments and for the sale of the FMH to be deferred for two years but maintained the split of 70/30 in the wife’s favour of the proceeds of sale of the FMH. He described the case as one in which he sought to ‘ balance the unfairness’.

The CA upheld a judgment that a child Q’s needs and welfare required adoption notwithstanding the availability of her Father to care for her in circumstances where Q, the Mother and other family members would be a significant risk of ‘honour-based’ violence if Q’s birth became known to the maternal grandfather. Q had been placed with adopters by the time the Father came forward and there were concerns in respect of his delay and lack of understanding of Q’s needs.

The CA upheld a judgment following a complex fact finding hearing at the conclusion of which a Judge found that a mother had been complicit in the sexual abuse of her children. The Mother had sought to appeal based on the Judge’s lack of reasoning however the CA found that his judgment was sufficiently reasoned.

The Court determined the question of whether for the purposes of English divorcer and connected proceedings a Talaq pronounced by the respondent Husband in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia and placed by Deed of confirmation before the Sharia Court is entitled to be afforded recognition in this jurisdiction. The court answered the question in the affirmative.

The CA allowed the appeal of three children in respect of a order for their return under the provisions of the Hague Convention to Poland. The matter was remitted for re-hearing for the Judge in the light of the children’s objections to return to exercise discretion as to whether this should nevertheless be ordered.

The CA allowed a Father’s appeal against the refusal the court below to order summary return of his child to Australia. The CA held that the court below had not directed itself correctly as to the impact of the Supreme COurt judgment in Re E.The CA criticised utilisation of paragraph 36 of Re E as directions in Hague Convention cases.

In an important case in respect of family placements during the course of LA involvement the CA upheld the judgment of Black J that a child placed with her grandmother but with no public law order was a ‘looked after child’ and that therefore the grandmother was entitled to a fostering allowance from the relevant LA.