An NHS Hospital Trust v GM and others

Declaration Procedure. A declaration was made that it was in the best interests of 14-week-old baby, H, that his ventilation tube be removed. The Family Division held, amongst other considerations, that the medical evidence had been unanimous that H was going to die very soon and that there was no quality of life for H. Orders concerning reporting restrictions and the presence of the police at H's bedside at and around the time of his death were also made.

Re V (A Child) (Recognition of Foreign Adoption)

Family proceedings Adoption. The applicants, Nigerian nationals at the time resident in the United Kingdom in a temporary capacity, had applied for recognition of a Nigerian adoption order. The Family Court, following examination of all the relevant criteria for the recognition of foreign adoptions, acceded to the application.

Re CB (International Relocation: Domestic Abuse: Child Arrangements)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court refused the father's application for contact with the child, CB, and the mother's application for the permanent removal of CB to Portugal. Instead, the matter was adjourned for five months, to give the father a time-limited opportunity to demonstrate that he could be a good parent to CB and could co-parent CB by way of taking courses-seeking help to deal with his behaviours. The issues of contact and relocation would be addressed at a later date following the five-month adjournment.

Gibbs v Gibbs

Contempt of court Committal. The mother was committed to prison for nine months, following breaches of an order prohibiting her from continuing to make unsubstantiated allegations against the father. The Family Division held that, in the light of the mother's continued defiance, unwillingness to change, lack of insight on the impact of her behaviour, not only on the father but on their children too, there was no opportunity other than to impose an immediate custodial sentence which reflected the nature and consequences of the breach.

Re X (A Child) (No 2)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. In circumstances where the relevant local authority had not formulated a properly worked-up care plan for X, who was approaching 17 and detained in a secure unit ahead of her release, the Family Division, concluded that, due to the nature of X's complex needs, it was likely that a care plan would involve a deprivation of her liberty. A plan of action was approved which would lead to the formulation of a properly worked-up care plan that could be put before the court for approval, exercising the inherent jurisdiction, before X was released from the secure unit.

OCC v AB and another

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. There were no solid foundation, or reasonable grounds, for a belief that G had been the victim of a deliberately inflicted injury by either of his parents, nor that either one of them might have accidentally injured him then sought to conceal it from each other and from professionals. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the local authority's application for an interim care order-interim supervision order, concluding that the threshold for the making of such orders had not been met.

*Welch v Welch

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. There was no requirement, under of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that every detail of a contract or conveyance had to be presented to the party refusing to sign it. The Family Court so ruled in granting the husband's application for a declaration that all future contracts of sale and associated sale documentation in respect of a property, which the court had previously ordered to be sold, be submitted to the wife for her signature, without the names of the proposed purchasers or their solicitors (the details) appearing on the documents. The husband argued that the wife had contacted a prospective purchaser and his solicitors, allegedly in an attempt to thwart the sale. The court held that any attempt to obstruct the purpose of the previous court order could be defeated by redacting the details from the documentation, which would not affect the validity of the contract.

*Sharp v Sharp

Divorce Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in an appeal against a decision to divide matrimonial assets on an equal basis held that the appellant wife was correct to contend that the combination of potentially relevant factors, namely, short marriage, no children, dual income and separate finances, was sufficient to justify a departure from the equal sharing principle in order to achieve overall fairness between the parties.

F v L

Minor Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division allowed the mother's appeal against the judge's decision, refusing her application to relocate with the child, D, to Italy. The judge had made a fundamental procedural error in failing to resolve the issue of the future care of D prior to considering the application for relocation and had failed to consider or make any finding in respect of complaints of the father's controlling and coercive behaviour, as alleged by the mother.

Re A and another (Children)

Adoption Order. The Family Court determined that the English courts had jurisdiction to hear the applicants' application for an adoption order of two children born in Scotland. It was further determined that there should not be a stay of proceedings in the English court because of the principle of forum non conveniens, on the basis that Scotland, and not England, was the forum conveniens.