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.
The Court refused to make a declaration of non-recognition of the marriage of a young mother involved in care proceedings. The court held that the ‘marriage’ having taken place when the mother was 14 and was domiciled in this jurisdiction was void and therefore the appropriate and only allowable way to achieve relief was for her to issue a nullity petition.
The court allowed in part an appeal against findings made within care proceedings and remitted the matter for re-hearing.
Following the change in approach set out in Re: BS the CA allowed two appeals against refusals of permission to oppose Adoption applications under s.47(5). The CA remitted both matters back to the original judges to determine whether or not to grant leave to oppose. The President made clear and forceful remarks on the importance of court orders being complied with, referring to the ‘the slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious attitude which still far too frequently characterises the response to orders made by family courts’. He emphasises that non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence.
The CA dismissed a wife’s appeal against the granting of a stay of divorce proceedings in this jurisdiction on the basis of prior proceedings being in existence in India and that India was the more appropriate forum for the proceedings.
The CA allowed an appeal against the making of Placement Orders in a case where the subject child required intensive therapy before a decision could properly be made as to whether adoption would be in her best interests.
In a case concerning the unusual situation of counsel who had acted for the Husband in financial proceedings in respect of his first wife and subsequently acted against the Husband in financial proceedings with his second wife the court allowed the second wife’s appeal against the setting aside of the ancillary relief order. Counsel are not prohibited from acting against former clients provided they do not make use of any confidential information in so doing. The situation was fully disclosed to both parties and to the court prior to the hearing taking place and the Husband gave his consent to the Counsel acting for his second wife to continue.
The CA dismissed an appeal against the making of Care and Placement Orders. It was held that although the judgment (handed down before Re: BS) was linear in structure and did not initially appear to weigh the options against each other on a closer reading it was clear that the Judge did have in mind both potential options and given his central adverse findings against the proposed family placement his decision was not wrong.
The CA dismissed the appeal of a widow against the refusal of the court to extend time for her to make an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. The CA acknowledged the potential merits of her substantive claim but found that she could not justify the 6 year delay in making her application.