Re A (a child) (contact order: unsupervised contact)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in granting a father less restrictive and unsupervised contact with his daughter in circumstances where the judge had recognised that a psychological risk assessment had been required of the father in order to assess any potential risks to the child of him having unsupervised contact.

*R v Hussain

Criminal law Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused the Crown leave to appeal following a judge had acceded to an application on behalf of the respondent to stay remaining counts on an indictment relating to child prostitution and sexual offences against children and young adults. As the respondent had already faced two trials and that experience had resulted in him developing mental illness as a result, it was held that continuation of the proceedings would be oppressive and unjust.

Re W (a child) (care proceedings: judge's findings of fact)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The parents had taken their young son, W, to hospital where it was discovered that he had a number of serious injuries. The local authority obtained a care order in respect of W and the parents appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the parents' appeal on the basis that there was no basis for attacking the judge's factual findings.

Re L (a child)

Family Proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The mother gave birth to AM shortly after starting a three year prison sentence. The local authority obtained an interim care order and the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the appeal on the basis that the relationship between AM and the mother should have been preserved pending a final adjudication of the issues in the care proceedings.

Re CB (a child) (adoption proceedings: lack of care order)

Adoption Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was legally permissible for a local authority to present a case to its adoption panel and issue an application for a placement for adoption order in circumstances where the child was not subject to an interim care order but was simply accommodated under s20 of the .

PC (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and another v A Local Authority

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, whilst the Court of Protection had posed the correct test, under the to the question of whether a woman with learning difficulties had had capacity to make a decision whether to live with her husband in circumstances where her husband had been convicted of serious sexual offences against his former wives, the court had erred in its approach to the circumstances of the case. In circumstances where the individual concerned had had capacity to marry, she had to be taken to have capacity to make a decision to perform the terms of her marriage contract. Clear and cogent evidence would be required for the court to determine that she had lacked the capacity to cohabit with her husband, and there was no such evidence in the instant case.

S v S

Divorce Financial provision. The Family Division dismissed the wife's application for an order that a hearing which had concluded in July 2012 be resumed on the grounds of material non-disclosure by the husband in order that the wife could pursue her financial remedies. The hearing had concluded when the parties had reached a settlement which was approved by the court, but the court order was never sealed. The court held that, although the husband was guilty of non-disclosure, the non-disclosure had not been material. The draft order would be sealed forthwith.

Re C (a child) (adoption proceedings: change of circumstances)

Adoption Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge, in refusing a father's application for permission to oppose an adoption order, had displayed no error of law, no error of approach and had not exercised a flawed discretion.

*X County Council v a mother and others

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the case of two boys, aged three and one, who came from a family in which Huntington's disease (HD) was said to be present. The boys were the subject of interim care orders and were likely to be placed for adoption. The court held that it was not in the welfare interests of either child for the court to order testing to establish whether they were carrying the gene for HD.

Re T (Children) (contact: application to replace indirect contact with supervised contact)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the applicant father's appeal against a ruling reducing contact with his children to indirect contact and dismissing his application to change the name of his youngest child. The judge had misdirected himself in reaching the conclusion he had reached in respect of contact and the supervised contact order would be restored. The name change application would be remitted to the County Court.