In the heavily publicised AR trial the Court made a lump sum order of £20m to a Wife where the Husband had claimed to have no assets at all and the Wife had sought £300m on the basis of undisclosed assets.
The Court gave adoptive parents of a child ‘Katie’ who is a ward of court permission to identify themselves as MG and FG the parents of ‘Katie’ in any discussions with the media and permission to refer by name to Jane Dunne (a social work Team Manager), Andy Waugh (Jane Dunne’s manager), Andy Pepper (Deputy Director of Social Services), Colin Green (at the relevant time the Director of Children’s Services) and Bob Dhammi (the Independent Reviewing Officer).
The Court allowed the appeal of a Husband against an order committing him to prison for six weeks for non-payment of periodical payments.
The Court made s.37 ICOs in respect of three children returned to the jurisdiction from Pakistan within a long-running very difficult case. The youngest sibling a 3 year old had not been returned to the jurisdiction. The Court held that the children were suffering significant harm as a result of emotional pressure and a false history (believing their Mother to have abandoned them) given to them by the Father.
The CA allowed a Mother’s appeal against the refusal of leave to oppose the making of an Adoption Order in circumstances where the prospective adopters had separated and the prospective adoptive mother no longer sought an Adoption Order. The CA held that the Mother’s case should be considered side by side with the other options for the child at the Adoption hearing and that she should be granted leave.
The CA allowed a Father’s appeal against a order prohibiting him from removing his child from the Mother’s care and providing for indirect contact only. The CA identified numerous, serious procedural defects arising largely from the fact that neither party was legally represented and there was no judicial continuity. The conduct of Cafcass was also criticised and guidance given as to the conduct of cases in the light of the loss of public funding. The Court set aside the order, remitting the matter for re-hearing in another court with a Judge to be allocated by the Family Division Liaison Judge. The child was joined as a party NYAS requested to represent him.
The CA allowed a Mother’s appeal and held that courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction to make orders in respect of her daughter who had been habitually resident in Sweden at the time an Interim Care Order was made.
The Supreme Court ordered the return of a 7 year old child to Texas. The court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that the child habitually resident in this jurisdiction but determined that a return to Texas was nevertheless in his best interests as in the circumstances of the case this would provide the best opportunity for him to develop a proper relationship with both his parents.
The Court refused a formal request from the Centre for the International Legal Protection of Children and Youth in Bratislava for a transfer of the care proceedings relating to children of Slovakian nationality (who had lived in England all their lives) to Slovakia, pursuant to Article 15 of the Regulation. The court found the Slovak authority to be operating under a misunderstanding of the children’s placement with foster carers.
The court sentenced a mother to 28 days imprisonment for breach of a Collection Order made within care proceedings. The court found that the mother could if she wished procure the immediate return of the children but had not done so despite being arrested.