Deborah Marsden represented a 13 year old in proceedings where the court made a Deprivation of Liberty Order, having deemed it necessary and proportionate to the harm the child was at risk of. The court held that the confinement of the child in hospital, where she had been for a significant period, could not continue beyond a set period and the authorisation of the deprivation of liberty will only be in her best interests in the children’s home at the end of the transition.

Tony McGovern and Isabel Wilson, instructing Michael Gration KC and Amean El-Gadhy of 4PB, represented the first appellant in the matter of Re X (A Child), on appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Hayden in the High Court. Whilst the appeal was dismissed, it raised important questions around the proper weight to give a child’s objections within Hague Convention proceedings, as well as the proper use of s37 reports.

Tony McGovern represented a child in a case concerning an application made by the child’s mother for his summary return under the Hague Convention. Defences were raised by the father under Article 13(b) of  grave risk of harm and Article 13(2) of the child’s objections. The court’s focus  was in the evaluation of the child’s expressed object to return. Following such evaluation, the Court made an order for the child to return to South Africa.

The Court was concerned with three separate appeals relating to the attribution of parental responsibly and the status of ‘father’. The Court of Appeal confirmed that only biological fathers acquire parental responsibility through registration on a child’s birth certificate.

Charles Mellor instructed Luke Eaton in a case concerning a mother’s appeal against findings that the allegations made by her had been fabricated and the court’s findings of ‘parental alienation’. On appeal the Court set aside the finding of ‘parental alienation’, noting procedural and substantive errors. The Court highlighted that the mother had not been on notice that she faced a potential finding of alienating behaviours at the hearing.

We acted for the child at a final hearing in which the court made care and placement orders, considering the interference with Article 8 rights to be necessary and proportionate. The Judge held that the child and any placement would be likely to benefit from direct contact with the mother, at a reasonable level which permits the placement to be stable. The Judge went on to note that there should be active consideration of a meeting between the mother and the prospective adopters.

Claudia Gough represented the mother on behalf of Elysia Morter in a final hearing at week 73 of proceedings. The Local Authority sought final care and placement orders for the child which was opposed by the parents who sought adjournment to place the child with paternal family in India. The court made care and placement orders, noting that placement with paternal family had been pursued and to further delay permanence was not in the child’s welfare interests.

We acted for the children in proceedings in which the court made a 1 year supervision order for the children to remain in the care of their father. The local authority, supported by the mother and children’s guardian, had sought placement of the children with their paternal aunt under a special guardianship order. In coming to the decision, the court had regard to the good care that the children were currently receiving, the support network and the steps taken by the father to address his substance misuse.

Tony McGovern instructed Henry lamb to represent the children at a final hearing concerning the parties’ cross application for the return of the children. The mother sought return of the older child to this jurisdiction from Egypt, whilst the father sought return of the younger child from this jurisdiction to Egypt. The Judge held that the older child should return from Egypt to this jurisdiction and reside with the mother upon her return.

Henry Lamb, instructed by Tony McGovern, represented a child who was subject to an interim care order, in respect of the mother’s application for an order preventing the local authority from vaccinating the child.  The court dismissed the mother’s application. Mr Justice MacDonald noted that there was no basis to conclude that the decision of the local authority to exercise its powers under section 33 by arranging for the child to be vaccinated was unreasonable, irrational or otherwise unlawful or in breach of the mother or child’s Article 8 rights.

The case concerns an appeal of a decision made by the President of the Family Division to set aside a return order made in respect of the return of two children to the US.  The Court of Appeal considered Orders made by the US Court which would govern the arrangements after the children’s return. The Court of Appeal set aside the paragraph of the order in which the mother and children’s set aside applications were dismissed and stayed the return order, pending further order of the court. The Court  adjourned the appeal to be restored in no more than 90 days, to give further opportunity for the US court to consider the position in light of information not before it at the time.

We represented the child in proceedings, at which at final hearing the court favoured placement with the maternal grandmother under a kinship placement. Final orders could not be made at the hearing as the maternal grandmother had not been presented to fostering panel. The Judge noted that whilst the court has no jurisdiction to direct the panel to make a decision, the panel can and should take full account of the judgment made, including the conclusion that the negative assessments of the maternal grandmother were flawed.

Kelly Wild on behalf of Emma Hall represented two children where the court made care orders for the children to reside at home with one of their parents. The court deemed that care orders were necessary to protect the children and proportionate given the high risks, namely the parents usage of illegal drugs and them being in the process of addressing their addiction to alcohol.

Anarkali Musgrave and Kelly Wild represented three children in proceedings which were initiated after the three children contracted gonorrhoea. The Judge found that there was no evidence to support a finding that any of the children had been sexually abused by their mother or that she had allowed them to be. The Judge held that this being a single issue case, that the threshold was not met. It was noted that the local authority cannot be criticised for brining proceedings and for pursuing them to the conclusion of a fact finding hearing.

Dawn Wilson represented the mother in a leading case concerning hair strand testing in family cases.

The Court decided not to make Care Orders in respect of children and related to the Local Authority not pursuing a finding of fact hearing, and as a result how the case should proceed.

Appeal by mother against an order approving a care plan that her child be adopted by family friends on the basis that a special guardianship order would be more appropriate in the circumstance. Appeal dismissed.

Publicity – Material in public domain – ECHR Articles 8 and 10.

Placement of a child out of jurisdiction for purposes of adoption