Source: http://cases.familylorefocus.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 16:26:07
Document Index: 250214887

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 8', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

Family Lore Case Digest: October 2011
HOME | NEWS | CASE DIGEST | ARTICLES | BLOGS | FAMILY LORE | ABOUT H (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1218 (12 July 2011)
Appeal against care order, on the basis that the question of whether adoption or continued contact with their family was best for the children had not been fully addressed. Appeal allowed, care order discharged and replaced with an interim care order.Full report: Family Law Week
ML & AR v RW & SW [2011] EWHC 2455 (Fam) (29 July 2011)
Two children conceived by IVF. Contact and residence applications by the biological father and his partner. The court struck out the residence application, made a contact order and fixed a welfare hearing.Full report: Family Law Week
W (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196 (17 August 2011)
Appeal by father against order for committal made against him for breach of, inter alia, an order requiring him to return the child to this country. Appeal dismissed.Full report: Family Law Week
DL v London Borough of Newham [2011] EWHC 1890 (Admin) (7 September 2011)
Local authority acted in breach of Art 8 procedural rights when it required prospective adopters to return the child.Report: Family Law
M (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 1161 (18 August 2011)
Care proceedings. Appeal by parents against refusal to extend a residential assessment. Appeal dismissed.Full report: Family Law Week
Care proceedings. Appeal by father against an order for limited disclosure of a psychiatric report prepared on the mother. Appeal allowed, and order replaced with an order for disclosure of the entire report.Full report: Family Law Week
Brough v Law [2011] EWCA Civ 1183 (20 October 2011)
Appeal against decision that a maintenance assessment was not brought to an end by the two-month reconciliation of the parties. Appeal dismissed, as Parliament must have intended that an assessment would cease to have effect only at the end of six months continuous cohabitation. (Note: This case related to the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 as operative in 1999.) Full report: Bailii
Financial remedy proceedings following divorce involving a £500,000 lottery prize won by the wife during the course of the marriage. Held that the initial receipt of the lottery prize was non-matrimonial property, but that when W purchased the matrimonial home she converted that part of her non-matrimonial assets into matrimonial property, and that on the application of both the sharing and needs principles the husband was entitled to a lump sum award of £85,000.Full report: Bailii
G (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 1147 (19 April 2011)
Appeal by mother against order varying contact, so that the father should have contact not at a contact centre but under the supervision of his mother. Appeal allowed, on the basis that the judge had failed to weigh at all many of the relevant considerations.Full report: Family Law Week
O v P [2011] EWHC 2425 (Fam) (05 August 2011)
Judgment concerning preliminary issue as to whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain a Schedule 1 application. Held that the court did have jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the father was domiciled in England and Wales at the time the application was filed.Full report: Bailii
H-K (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1100 (10 October 2011)
Family moved from Australia to England, intending to live here for one year and then return to Australia. Relationship broke down and father returned to Australia, agreeing that mother could remain here with the children for a further period. Mother later announced that she would not return with the children. Father obtained an order under Hague Convention for children to be returned to Australia. Mother appealed. Held, the family had been habitually resident in England. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.Full report: Bailii
FG v MBW [2011] EWHC 1729 (Fam) (07 October 2011)
Application by mother under Schedule 1, including application to vary child maintenance order and for a lump sum. Maintenance order increased, with a review in 2013, but no lump sum ordered, as father would have to use his capital to pay maintenance.Full report: Bailii
Diamante and Pelliccioni v San Marino (App No 32250/08) (27 September 2011)
The mother (who was Italian) and child complained that orders made in custody and contact proceedings in San Marino, in particular an order that the child was to live with the father in San Marino, had violated their rights under Art 8. Held that there had not been a violation of Art 8.Report: Family LawFull report: ECHR
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2498 (Fam) (01 September 2011)
On granting an application to purge a contempt, the court may not impose a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, the suspended sentence previously given to the respondent was replaced by an order for her immediate and unconditional release.Full report: Bailii
G v A [2011] EWHC 2377 (Fam) (29 November 2011)
Further proceedings relating to the implementation of a Sch.1 order requiring the father to pay a lump sum to enable the purchase of a property for the mother and child. Directions given regarding the purchase of a suitable property.
G v A (No 2) (Schedule 1 settlement of property) [2011] EWHC 968 (Fam) (23 March 2011)
Further proceedings relating to the enforcement of a Sch.1 order requiring the father to pay a lump sum to enable the purchase of a property for the mother and child. Interim freezing order made against father, in order to preserve assets for the purpose of enforcement.Full report: Bailii
G v A (No 1) (Schedule 1 settlement of property) [2011] EWHC 2380 (Fam) (14 February 2011)
Applications by the Applicant mother to enforce effective payment and implementation of an Order for £240,000 made against the respondent father in Schedule 1 proceedings heard in May 2005. Order made for father to pay lump sum to trustees to enable the purchase of a property for the mother and child.Full report: Bailii
A London Local Authority v JH & Anor [2011] EWHC 2420 (COP) (25 August 2011)
Application by local authority for declarations that 75 year-old woman who had suffered a stroke in January lacked capacity to decide where to live on discharge from hospital and that it was in her best interests to be discharged to, and to live in, a nursing home. Held that she should return home, under a care package.Full report: Bailii
H (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1218 (12 July 2011)
ML & AR v RW & SW [2011] EWHC 2455 (Fam) (29 July ...
DL v London Borough of Newham [2011] EWHC 1890 (Ad...
KM v Lambeth London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Ci...
Brough v Law [2011] EWCA Civ 1183 (20 October 2011...
S v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) [2011] EW...
H-K (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1100 (10 October 20...
Diamante and Pelliccioni v San Marino (App No 3225...
G v A (No 2) (Schedule 1 settlement of property) [...
G v A (No 1) (Schedule 1 settlement of property) [...
A London Local Authority v JH & Anor [2011] EWHC 2...