Re. D and L (Minors Surrogacy) EWHC 2631 (Fam) (28.09.2012)

The court considered the 2010 regulations in a case where male civil partners sought a parental order in circumstances where due to the Indian surrogacy clinics failure they were unable to provide the written consent of the surrogate mother 6 weeks after the birth of the relevant twin children. Cafcass were asked to intervene to assist the court. Parental Orders under s.54 were made.

A v A [2012] EWHC B17 (Fam) (17.09.2012)

The Court considered the case law in respect of Art 10 and press reporting before making an order prohibiting disclosure in respect of an Ancillary relief case which had been settled shortly before judgment was given. In particular the court noted that sensitive information given buy the Husband in evidence had been given during a hearing held in private and so in compliance with Art 6.

Re. G (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1233 (04.10.2012)

The CA upheld the judgment of HHJ Copley that five children should attend the modern orthodox Jewish schools chosen by their mother rather than the Chareidi schools (described as ultra orthodox) they had attended while their parents remained in a relationship. The CA accepted that the issue of schooling was one of transcendental importance to the parties and the Chareidi community. The court accepted the trial judge’s reasoning that the children’s opportunities would be wider in the less orthodox schooling and this would include the opportunity to return to an ultra orthodox lifestyle in adulthood.

Re. J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204 (21.09.2012)

The CA allowed the appeal of a Child’s r.16.4 Guardian against the decision not to disclose the the parents and the Guardian information held by a Local Authority relating to the identity of and allegations of serious sexual abuse made by X against the Father. The CA held that the judge had been correct to weigh up the Art 6, 8 and 3 rights of the parties in circumstances where X’s mental and physical health was at grave risk but that he had erred in considering the issues of disclosure and whether X should be called to give evidence as inextricable. The CA held that disclosure served a purpose of it’s own and should be made to all parties.