*A Local Authority v M and others

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned the final welfare decision for the children, who at the time of the proceedings had been in foster care, following their return to the United Kingdom with their mother, who had taken them to Syria to join ISIS. The local authority had applied for the children to be placed in long term foster care and their father sought the return of the children to his care. The Family Division held that the children were much more likely to thrive and mature properly in the care of their father than in some as yet unidentified foster home. However, the family required multi-agency support, including support from the social worker, to gradually rehabilitate the children into their father's care.

Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan

Family proceedings Financial remedies. In the wife's financial remedy proceedings against the husband, the Family Division rejected the husband's contention that he was insolvent as to 2m as a result of some 200m having been stolen from him. In particular, it found that the husband had had a nominee who had not had a valid claim against him.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Richards and another

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The applicant local authority was granted leave to withdraw its application to commit a three-year-old girl's grandmother, as it had not been established that service of a collection order had been effected. The Family Division further held that the identity of the family, the girl's photograph and the present judgment would be put into the public domain in order to expedite the process of securing her recovery.

*N v J and others

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. A High Court judge had power, under FPR 4.1(6), to set aside a return order made under the inherent jurisdiction by another High Court judge where no error of the court was alleged, but where there had been a material change of circumstances or a material non-disclosure that went to the welfare of the child. However, the Family Division held that, on the evidence, the power should not be exercised in the present case to set aside the order for the mother to return the children to the jurisdiction.

*Re S (a child) (adoption: consent of child parent)

Adoption Consent. The Family Division gave guidance on a child parent's competence to consent to the placement of their baby for adoption and the baby's adoption. In the circumstances, it held that a specific assessment was required reasonably urgently on the mother's capacity to consent to adoption, before which she should receive some age-appropriate information about adoption in an age-appropriate way in order to enhance her decision-making potential.

*R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Human Rights Right to respect for private and family life. The defendant Secretary of State for Work and Pensions' policies were not unlawful under the the or the in so far as they concerned the treatment of people with a reassigned gender. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, rejecting her claims alleging that the policies breached arts 8 and-or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and were directly and indirectly discriminatory.

Re GP (a child) (return order: habitual residence)

Minor Removal outside jurisdiction. The judge had failed to consider in sufficient detail what was actually likely to happen to an 11-year-old girl on her return to Italy before reaching his conclusion on whether there was a grave risk that she would be exposed to psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation, especially if her mother were imprisoned for her prior removal of the child. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal against the judge's decision ordering the child's return.

Wilmot v Maughan

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The trial judge had been correct in refusing the husband's application to set aside all the orders served on him by email in Turkey following orders permitting alternative service by email. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that having regard, in particular to the lack of promptness (and the husband's own extensive use of email), the judge had been right to have dismissed the husband's application.

*Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council

Negligence Duty of care. The defendant local authority was vicariously liable to the claimant for the abuse she had suffered as a child whilst being placed with foster parents while in the care of the defendant. The Supreme Court found that the conditions in the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice had been met and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal Civil Division. However the Supreme Court found that the authority was not under a non-delegable duty of care.

Re B (A Child)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. There were serious concerns about the judge's approach to covert recordings, particularly that his guidance on applying for permission to rely on covert recordings had not been an exercise appropriately undertaken by a circuit judge. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant father's appeal to the extent of setting aside the relevant part of the judge's order that his judgment be published and, in its place, directed that the judgment was not to be made publicly available.