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.