Re K and HH (children) (special guardianship order: grandparents)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made care and placement orders in respect of two children whose younger sibling had died as a result of a traumatic shaking type injury which could have been inflicted by either parent. The court rejected the grandparents request for a special guardianship order in their favour and held, inter alia, that it was not satisfied that the grandparents had been able to meet the emotional demands of looking after the children.

Hamilton v Hamilton

Divorce Financial provision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal against an order varying provisions for the payment of capital by the wife, held that although the judge had gone too far in expressing her view of the effect of the s23(1)(c) of the she had made no error in reaching her conclusions.

Re C (a child) (international child abduction: appeal against set aside of consent order for summary return)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a father's appeal against the setting aside of a consent order under which a mother had agreed to the summary return of their child to Turkey. In the circumstances, the mother could not have made good her case to have the order set aside where there had not been a full consideration of the circumstances that surrounded her allegation that she had signed the order under duress from her counsel.

Re H (a child) (summary return).

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a mother's appeal and held that the judge had not erred in refusing the mother's application pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the summary return of her daughter to Mexico. The mother had previously retained the child in Mexico for over four years.

Re Y-M (a child) (father's contact: anger management issues)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in granting contact between a father and his child on the grounds that the father's general practitioner had reported no anger management issues had been present, in circumstances where the GP had not had the benefit of a CAFCASS report which had recommended suspension of contact pending an investigation into how the father could be assisted with his anger management.

*Re Y (a child) (abduction: undertakings given for return of child)

Minor Removal outside jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on determining whether an abducted child should be returned to Cyprus, protective measures put in place by way of undertakings made by the father would be recognised by Cyprus under the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996.

Re TG (a child) (care proceedings: expert evidence)

Family proceedings Evidence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held that the judge had directed himself correctly as to the principles he had had to apply, had not misunderstood the law, and had taken into account everything that had been relevant when refusing the father's application to adduce biomechanical evidence in the course of care proceedings involving an alleged non-accidental head injury.

Re M (children) (contact)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed parent's appeals against an order preventing contact with their children, in circumstances where the parents inflicted physical injuries on the children so serious that they had been characterised as victims of torture. The court found that the appeals had lacked any substance or foundation.

*Young v Young

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment for contempt of court, in circumstances where the husband had failed, in certain very important aspects, to comply with an order of the court requiring him to provide further information in respect of his financial situation.

*Eweida and others v United Kingdom (App. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)

Human rights Religion. The European Court of Human Rights awarded 2,000 to an employee who had been required not to display a religious cross by her employer, an airline. It ruled that the interference with the employee's right to manifest her religion under art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was disproportionate despite the legitimate aim of her employer (in the form of its uniform policy). The Court dismissed a similar claim by a nurse because the hospital's health and safety policy was a stronger justification for the interference than the airline's uniform policy. It also dismissed claims for breaches of art 9 by a registrar who did not want to preside over civil partnerships and a relationship counsellor who disapproved of same-sex relationships; in the particular cases the legitimate aim of preventing discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation outweighed the right of the applicants to manifest their religious beliefs under art 9.