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.
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.
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.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant mother's appeal against the issue of care and placement orders as neither order was still live.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted the mother's application for an order terminating the father's parental responsibility in respect of their child, D, in circumstances where the father had been convicted of sexually abusing the mother's two elder daughters.
Children and young persons Court proceedings. Three children were being cared for by their grandmother as there had been concerns regarding their mother's care for them, in particular her relationship with a child sex offender. In anticipation of the man's release from prison, the proceedings were issued with the intention of requiring the local authority to conduct a risk assessment. An assessment was conducted and a subsequent assessment was carried out when the details of the offender's release were available. Between the first and second assessment, the police's opinion on risk changed materially, consequently, the authority found that the children were at no greater risk than any other child in the area. The children's application for judicial review of that assessment was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the second assessment had been unlawful as it had not dealt with the police's change in position.
Family Proceedings Interim care order. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings against a local authority after they removed her children from the care of their paternal grandparents and placed them into foster care. The claimant contended that the local authority's decision had been taken unlawfully because of their failure to consult. The Administrative Court found in favour of the claimant, finding that the decision to remove the children had been unlawful for lack of consultation. Moreover, there was an argument for quashing the decision, but in the circumstances of the instant case, declaratory relief was the appropriate remedy.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Administrative Court set out reasons why certain changes to the Immigration Rules (the Rules), as set out in the Statement of Changes laid on 13 June 2012 (HC 194), in relation to claims based on family life, as contained in para276ADE of the Rules, sE-LTRP: Eligibility for limited leave to remain as a partner contained in App FM family members to the Rules, and para EX.1 of sEX: Exception contained in App FM family members to the Rules, had not been unlawful on the basis that they were incompatible with art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was full coverage of an individual's rights under art8 of the Convention in all cases by a combination of the changes to the Rules and under the Secretary of State's residual discretion to grant leave to remain outside the Rules.
Family proceedings Care proceedings. Parents travelled to Ireland so that their child, subsequently born there, would not be taken into care by the local authority responsible for the mother's older children. The newborn became the subject of Irish care proceedings. The mother returned to England and sought the transfer of those proceedings to the Family Division, together with the child. The court held that the transfer was in the newborn's best interests and that the same local authority would be responsible for all of the children and not the local authority into which the mother had relocated.
Judicial review Application for judicial review. Having pleaded guilty to being drunk in a public place while having the charge of a child under the age of seven years, the claimant councillor, who had a two-and-a-half year old daughter, B, applied for an order for reporting conditions pursuant to s39 of the . The magistrates' court refused the application and the claimant brought judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge that decision. In dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that on any sensible construction of s39 of the 1933 Act, the criminal proceedings had been taken 'in respect of' and thus 'concerned' B, but that, in all the circumstances of the case, the justices had had a reasonable basis for concluding that no order under s39 had been justified.