Adoption Order. The applicant was the biological father of a child, aged seven months, who had been born to him through surrogacy arrangements made with the applicant's mother and through a fertility clinic. The Family Court granted the order for adoption where the arrangement had been entirely lawful under the and the and where the court was satisfied that the child's lifelong welfare needs would be met by the court making the order.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a declaration of parentage in favour of X, in circumstances where a fertility clinic was found to have mislaid the requisite consent form relating to parenthood prior to treatment. X was the partner of Y who had conceived the child, Z, using donor sperm following treatment at the clinic.
Minor Abduction. E's parents had separated and he lived with his mother in Spain. Following an extended stay visiting his father in England, he did not return to Spain. The judge refused the mother's application for an order, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, that he be returned to Spain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the mother's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judgment allowed one to be satisfied that the judge had had the relevant features well in mind and had balanced them in a way that had been open to him.
Police Powers. The present appeal concerned the question of the circumstances in which DNA profiles obtained by the police in the exercise of their criminal law enforcement functions could, without the consent of the data subject, be put to uses which were remote from the field of criminal law enforcement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, construed s 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985 as meaning that, if the police considered that it was necessary to retain DNA material obtained under Pt II of PACE for criminal law enforcement purposes, they could not use it for any other purpose.
Licence Licence to occupy premises. The claimant Secretary of State brought possession proceedings against the defendant following her failure to vacate a property which she had occupied with her then husband, under a licence granted to the husband. The judge rejected her arguments that: (i) the fact that Crown licensees had no security of tenure amounted to unlawful discrimination, under arts8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and (ii) the notice purporting to terminate the licence was invalid. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal. On the facts, there had been no violation of the defendant's Convention rights, because there had been no relevant difference in treatment which had had an adverse effect on her, and the notice had validly terminated the licence.
Divorce Financial provision. There was before the court an application by the husband on Form A regarding the variation of a financial order made by the German court following divorce proceedings between him and his wife. The Family Division held that the Form A and issued on behalf of the husband had not validly seised that court with competent power to make an application for a financial order: specifically an order varying a periodical payments order. There was only one route laid down by European Council Regulation (EC) 4-2009, via Central Authorities.
Family proceedings Care proceedings. The Family Division, in a case of alleged sexual abuse of two step children by the step father, made findings of fact. The findings made were such that the threshold conditions for intervention in the case of the second step child and the younger three children had overwhelmingly been met, where the eldest step child had already left the family home.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. K, who was two years old, had died as a result of injuries sustained while in the care of G, who was her mother's partner. The Family Court carried out a fact-finding hearing. It held that G was responsible for K's death, but that the mother's care had fallen below that which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to have given. In the circumstances, the threshold criteria for making a care or supervision order were established.
Contempt of court Committal. In the course of care proceedings, the court was concerned that the defendant mother would remove her child from the jurisdiction. She failed to comply with an order that she hand over, to an officer of the court, the child's passport and other specified documents. The Family Division held that the mother was in breach of the order and was in contempt of court. A seven-day committal order was made in the circumstances.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. In family proceedings, the father of a child, D, sought a child arrangements order under which D would live with him or continue to be cared for by both parents in England. The mother sought permission to relocate with him to live in Moscow, her native city and D's birthplace, with contact with the father occurring in England and in Russia. The Family Court upheld the mother's application and granted permission to the mother to remove D.