Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. In proceedings concerning a wealthy Russian family, the welfare of two children, who currently lived with their mother in England, was better served by their move to Switzerland to live with their father. So ruled the Family Division, in allowing the father's application to remove the children to live with him in Switzerland, subject to certain conditions, including a child arrangements' order for them to live with both parents there, with funding for the mother to set up a home in that country. The father was also ordered to pay 150,000 towards the mother's costs.
Divorce Financial provision. Having set out the proper approach to non-matrimonial property when determining a financial remedy claim by application of the sharing principle, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the wife's appeal. The judge had not been required to award the wife a half share because he had been unable to carry out a formulaic approach, in part, because he had been unable to ascertain the true value of the husband's pre-marital wealth, and he had not erred by having awarded her his needs calculation, when all his other calculations had been for higher amounts.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division provided guidance on where an asylum claim would halt an application under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The father had applied, pursuant to the Convention, for the return of his two children from the United Kingdom to Israel. Days prior to the present proceedings, the subject children had been refused asylum and were subsequently ordered to be returned to Israel. However, the order would not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation of the decision on the mother and children's appeal against the refusal of the grant of asylum.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. None of the final care plans proposed by the local authority for five children could be approved. The Family Court held that, before they could be approved, it was important to know whether the present foster carers were willing to offer a long-term home either for the older four children or just for the eldest child and that before the plans to separate the older four children could be properly evaluated, there needed to be an expert assessment of the children by an appropriately experienced child psychologist.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. In the applicant local authority's application for care orders in respect of two children aged 13 and 12, the Family Court made all of the principal findings of fact sought by the authority. It would have to determine, in due course, the appropriate future long-term placements in their welfare best interests of the children.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The terms of a child arrangements order were varied in circumstances where prior to the present proceedings the youngest child, JL, had been living in Australia with the mother and the eldest child, IL, had been living in England with the father. The Family Court, in considering and balancing the harm that would come to IL if ordered to go to Australia and live with his mother, against the harm that JL would suffer as a result of being ordered to come and live with his father in England, the balance of harm fell in favour of making a child arrangements order in favour of the father.
Contempt of court Committal. The father was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment following the mother's allegations against him of six breaches of court orders, which had been designed to facilitate the return of two of his three children to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The Family Division, in passing the sentence held that the criminal standard of proof had been established with all the allegations and that some had been serious breaches.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. It was necessary and proportionate that the youngest of six children be placed for adoption and the statutory test for dispensing with parental consent was clearly met, as the child's welfare throughout his life could only be achieved by the local authority's plan. With respect to the five older children, the Family Court approved an agreement that they should stay in foster care where they had been since December 2016 in the best interests of those children.
Costs Payment into court. When considering whether the ability of a third party to provide funds could be taken into account in assessing the likelihood that a company could make a payment into court, the question had to be whether the company could raise the money and not whether the relevant shareholder could raise the money. The appropriate criterion to be applied was whether the appellant company had established on the balance of probabilities that no such funds would be made available to it, whether by its owner or by some other closely associated person, as would enable it to satisfy the requested condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant company's appeal against a finding that its appeal against an earlier judgment would be dismissed, on the grounds that it could not make the required payment into court.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The parents' right under art10 of the European Convention on Human Rights outweighed the children's right under art8 of the Convention when it came to the question of an online petition being taken down. The parents had created the petition following the grant of adverse care and placement orders involving the parents' four children. The Family Division held, amongst other things, that there was very little cogent evidence that each of the children or any of them would suffer embarrassment, much less emotional harm, if the petition remained online.