OX44/2020 [2021] EWHC 91 (Fam)
Applications pursuant to Part 19 FPR 2010 within adoption proceedings to determine whether the local authority is under a duty to notify the Romanian Central Authority of the proceedings and if not, should their assistance be sought to identify the birth father and wider family.
The court was concerned with AK, a baby boy born in the UK to a Romanian national who travelled here whilst 8 months pregnant. The Mother had done that with the express purpose of giving birth here and then relinquishing AK for adoption.
During the adoption process the Mother declined to give any details of the Father but she did confirm his name and date of birth when she was admitted to the hospital to give birth. Furthermore she agreed to work with the allocated social worker and write a letter to AK as part of the life story work to be given to him when he is older. In that letter the Mother confirms details of the Father but no contact details. She was entirely co
Salford CC v W and Ors [2021] EWHC 61 (Fam)
MacDonald J in the High Court, Family Division:
(1) dismissed a prohibited steps order application preventing Roman Catholic sacraments for children ages 4-11 in a proposed Special Guardianship setting, and
(2) adjourned an application for a declaration on their legal status (for purposes of eventually determining the local authority’s obligation to pay remuneration), pending involvement in the question from both local authorities (Norfolk and Suffolk).
Background
There are five children, from age 4 to age 11 years old, and all parties agree that they should stay in the care of a maternal aunt and her partner, Mrs Z and Mr Y, with whom they have lived since June 2017. All parties also agree there should be a Special Guardianship Order.
V v W [2020] EWFC 84, 2 December 2020
In this case, Sir James Munby dismissed the husband s ( H ) application for disclosure of the transcript of the FDR hearing and various associated documents into civil proceedings involving recovery of a single joint expert s fees incurred in financial remedy proceedings.
Mr X, a single joint expert, was appointed in financial remedy proceedings to value a company owned by H. H was to pay the fees. The report was produced late and received by H two days before the FDR hearing. In April 2019, Mr X s firm issued a claim against H seeking payment of its fees. Later that month, H s company became insolvent and entered a USA Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
KK v Leeds CC & DK [2020] EWCOP 64
This was a decision of Cobb J in which he considered the rules relating to joinder in Court of Protection Proceedings and the correct procedure in circumstances where the existing parties resist joinder of an applicant, but for reasons which are not openly stated.
This was a decision of Mr Justice Cobb in Court of Protection proceedings concerning DK, a 19-year-old highly vulnerable woman with global learning disabilities, an autistic spectrum disorder, and associated profound needs. Leeds City Council ( the LA ) asserted that DK lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence, contact with others, and use of social media and sought declarations and welfare orders in these respects.
In the matter of Re A (A Child: Adoption Time Limits s44(3)) [2020] EWHC 3296 (Fam)
An application to adopt A who had attained her majority. The court considered whether the application failed to comply with one of the statutory criteria of section 44, Adoption and Children Act 2002.
The application to adopt was made and issued before A reached her majority. A was the child of the applicant s (Z s) cousin and was born in St Lucia to parents did not feel able to care for her. In 2002, Z agreed to bring A to England and bring her up alongside her four children. A s parents signed a deed akin to a document delegating parental responsibility under section 2(9), Children Act