LM (A Child) [2013] EWHC 646 (Fam) (27 March 2013)

The court considered an Art 15 Brussels II request for the transfer of care proceedings relating to a young baby from the Republic of Ireland to the UK. The child’s older siblings were all placed following care proceedings in the UK in family placements. The mother had moved to Ireland when pregnant to avoid care proceedings but had not been successful in this and the baby had been taken into care in Ireland. The mother returned to the UK but to a different local authority area. The Court approved the transfer which was agreed by all parties and decided the issue of which LA should take responsibility for these.

LA (A Child) [2013] EWHC 578 (Fam) (15 March 2013)

The court considered how to place a child with potential adopters (already the adoptive parents of an older sibling) who were moving the the USA for work purposes. The interplay of both jurisdiction’s rules meant that no immediate adoption order could be made under UK or US law. In order to ensure the child remained habitually resident in the UK so that an Adoption order could be made subsequently the court granted leave for her to be removed for the UK and placed with the potential adopters for an initial period of one year.

Arif v Anwar & Anor [2013] EWHC 624 (Fam) (21 March 2013)

The court held an oral disclosure hearing and ordered that two preliminary issues concerning disputed assets which were the subject of both ancillary relief and bankruptcy proceedings would be subject to hearings in the Family Division. The court also identified issues which were not appropriate to be pursued in the ancillary relief proceedings. The bankruptcy proceedings remain in the Chancery Division.

ET BT and CT (Children) v Islington [2013] EWCA Civ 323 (10 April 2013)

The CA allowed the appeal of a grandmother acting as the litigation friend of her grandchildren against an order within JR proceedings. The LA in which the children were living with their grandmother was ordered to conduct a fresh assessment of the risk posed to the children by their mother’s previous partner (a serial sexual offender) and their previous report displaced. The CA found the LA to have been Wednesbury unreasonable in their treatment of the conflicting police positions within the first assessment.