Re A (a minor) (fact finding; unrepresented party)

Child Practice. The Family Division made a number of fact finding determinations, in order to inform future welfare decisions, in a case where the father had challenged the veracity of the mother's allegations of domestic abuse, at the hands of the father, where she had made such allegations as part of her application for refugee status.

H v K and others

Minor Custody. The Family Court ordered the summary return of two children to their jurisdiction of habitual residence, the United States, in circumstances where the mother had abducted them from that jurisdiction. There were advantages to the children's welfare being determined in the jurisdiction of their habitual residence within court proceedings that had already been constituted and engaged in the issue of welfare. Further, it was only by returning the children that could ensure the continuation of each child's relationship with their father.

Re B (Application for leave to revoke Placement Order)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court refused the parents' application for leave to revoke a placement order in respect of their child, B, in circumstances where there had not been any change of circumstances since the order, in November 2016, to justify passage through the statutory test in s24(3) of the .

WM v HM

Divorce Financial provision. The Family Court made an award of over 72m to the wife, following divorce proceedings. The award represented half of the product of the matrimonial partnership after the court rejected the husband's contention that there ought to be an unequal division of the same. Whilst making 145m over the course of a long marriage was a highly credible achievement, the present case was not one of those rare cases that justified an unequal division of the product of the matrimonial partnership.

B v B

Divorce Financial provision. The Family Division, amongst other determinations, stayed the applicant's application to enforce the provisions of an order, entered into by consent, relating to maintenance. That was because the respondent had, prior to the applicant's application, brought proceedings in Italy seeking to vary the maintenance provisions of that order. The court was satisfied that it was obliged, under the terms of art12 of Council Regulation (EC)4-2009, to stay the application until such time as the jurisdiction of the Italian court was established.

Re W (a child) (No 3) (adoption order: appeal)

Adoption Order. The Family Division held that, consistently with its order of 12 April 2017, dispensing with the parents' consent to the adoption of a child and making an adoption order in favour of adopters, the formal adoption order should be dated 12 April 2017. It would not be treated as not being made until after the determination of the father's renewed application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division.

*Re A (a child) (ward of court: approach by Security Service)

Ward of court Contempt of court in wardship proceedings. The Family Division, in a case where a Security Service officer had approached a ward of court, held that there was not and never had been any principle or rule that judicial consent was required before the police could interview a ward of court. Provided that the requirements of the with regard to juveniles were complied with, the duty upon the police was discharged and they had no extra duty to perform.

Green v Adams

Family provision Dependant. The Family Court ruled that the mother's application for further capital provision, in the total sum of 20,600, for her son, from the respondent father was manifestly proportionate and reasonable, and properly reflected the considerations in para4(1) of Sch1 to the .

F v M and another

Child Practice. The Family Division ruled that the grant of refugee status to the second respondent child, A, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be an absolute bar to any order by the family court seeking to effect an earlier order the applicant father had obtained seeking the return of A to Pakistan.

A Local Authority v Mother and others

Adoption Order. The Family Court, in balancing the permanent care options for the five-month-old child, held that to place her in the care of either her mother or father were not options that met her needs, nor in her best interests and that it was inevitable that she should be placed for adoption.