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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Child Care. The Family Court granted an application by the local authority for the father of a child, who was the subject of care proceedings, not to be provided with a copy of the notice to non-parties form. The relationship between the father and the child lacked the elements necessary to support a finding that de facto family ties had been created such as to entitle him to respect for family life, pursuant to art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (art8). Further, evidence of domestic violence against the mother had justified an order that the father should not receive a copy of the form had he been entitled to the protection of art8.
Minor Medical treatment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the parents' appeal against the judge's decision that it would not be in Charlie Gard's best interests to undergo nucleoside therapy overseas and that Great Ormond Street Hospital's application to remove him from a ventilator should be granted. On the basis of the judge's findings, there was no viable alternative treatment for Charlie, such that the parents' argument that there was a new category of child medical treatment cases deriving from Re Aysha King (A Child) () did not arise.
Practice Family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed a mother's appeal against a decision to make a final care order at an adjourned Issues Resolution Hearing. The court found that the instant proceedings had not been fair to the mother or the children. They had failed to accord to the mother her rights under art 6 the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair hearing, and in all the circumstances had fallen short of safeguarding the procedural and substantive rights of the children under art 8 of the Convention.