The Family Division held that a special advocate should be appointed to represent the interests of the father, in circumstances where the Local Authority sought FMPOs against the mother and father of the protected persons, their two daughters, and the father had applied, among other things, to discharge the FMPOs.
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the mother’s appeal against findings made against her by the Family Court that she had inflicted injuries on her son.
The Court of Appeal held that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statutory scheme, and wording of Sch 1, if the court did not have the power to make a settlement of property order for the benefit of a person who would be over 18 when it took effect; however, protecting the children from the financial pressure or ‘manipulation’ the appellant might exert had not come within the scope of an ‘exceptional’ circumstance which would have justified making an outright capital award in favour of an adult child.
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the mother’s appeal against the High Court decision that the court’s inherent jurisdiction can be used to authorise the deprivation of liberty of a child under sixteen where the placement is prohibited by the terms of amended statutory scheme.