Court of Protection Practice. Following its previous judgment in which a civil restraint order had been made against the respondent, the Court of Protection dealt with matters remaining, including finalisation of outstanding orders, publication of the judgment and any application for permission.
Contempt of court Civil contempt. The Court of Protection considered, among other things, an application for the committal for 27 contempts of a solicitor and the firm of which she was a member, which were brought by F, who was the applicant nephew of a person whose affairs had been managed by the court. The court held that F's applications had not been made properly, that it would not extend its discretion to consider them and that they were entirely without merit. It further ordered that an extended civil restraint order would be made against F for two years with regard to the relevant proceedings.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against a child arrangements order made in favour of the mother in respect of their child. The findings and conclusions made by the judge had been open to her on the totality of the evidence before her and it had been entirely within her discretion to have made the decision she had, namely, that the child should live with his mother and should spend time with his father. In no sense could that exercise of judicial discretion be said to have been flawed, erroneous or wrong.
Probate Action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that, in the absence of authority which required it to hold otherwise, he had a sufficient 'interest' in the will of his former wife's deceased mother to bring a probate claim challenging the validity of the will.
Practice Family proceedings. The Family Court described the serious consequences that had arisen for one family after a parent had covertly recorded a child in the course of a dispute about where the child should live. It held that it was almost always likely to be wrong for a recording device to be placed on a child for the purpose of gathering evidence in family proceedings, whether or not the child was aware of its presence, and that anyone who was considering doing something similar should, first, think carefully about the consequences.
Family proceedings Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Children's Guardian and the local authority against an order stating that the Hungarian court was better placed to hear a case regarding two children and that transferring the case to Hungary would be in the children's best interests. The children were Hungarian nationals born in the United Kingdom to Hungarian parents. The transfer request would be set aside and the case would be returned to the Family Division.
Practice Family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a mother's appeal against orders made by a judge in connection with a local authority's appeal, including that the mother would give oral evidence at the appeal hearing. It held that the process adopted by the judge on the authority's appeal to him had not been appropriate or fair to the mother, even though he had embarked upon it with the best of intentions.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made rulings concerning twins born to the applicant, X, who was in a same-sex relationship with the first respondent, Y. Owing to IVF treatment, X was the biological mother, and Y the gestational mother, of the twins. Owing to an error on the part of the clinic that had provided the treatment, X was not registered as the parent. The court held that an order would be made that X was the parent of the twins.
Adoption Order. The Family Court dismissed a mother's application for leave to oppose an adoption order where there was no change in circumstances of a nature and degree sufficient on the facts to open the door to permit her to defend the adoption application.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ruled, on a fact finding hearing, that there was insufficient evidence to prove a local authority's case that it had been the intention of the respective parents of four children, who had been taken from the United Kingdom to Turkey and who were subsequently made wards of court, to take them to a war zone in Syria controlled by ISIS and to remain there on a permanent basis.