Tuesday, October 16, 2012

News Update: 16th October 2012


WELCOME to the Family Lore News Update.

NEWS
High Court awards wife £8.7m in ‘needs’ case involving inherited wealth
In Y v Y [2012] EWHC 2063 (Fam) Mrs Justice Baron has awarded a wife a lump sum of £8,738,000 in a case which, in the light of the wife's needs, required her to 'invade' the husband's inherited assets. Full story: Family Law Week.

Bad weather now blamed for rise in domestic violence
Police have blamed a sharp rise in domestic violence on the weather claiming rain drives up attacks, according to this story in The Telegraph.

Couple win back children from social services after High Court battle
A couple whose two daughters were taken away by social services have been praised by a judge for “weathering the storm” of a lengthy High Court battle to win them back. The London Borough of Sutton v Gray & Others case - see below. Full story: The Telegraph.

Child protection case time limit 'penalises kinship carers'
Family members could be missing out on the chance to become legal guardians for children who can no longer live with their birth parents, due to the new six-month time limit for completing care proceedings in the courts, charities have warned. Full story: Children & Young People Now.

Survey demonstrates ongoing impact of Imerman v Tcheinguiz
Family lawyers are increasingly handling divorce cases in which they have knowledge of concealed assets or income but are unable to rely on any of the documents in court, according to Grant Thornton’s ninth annual matrimonial survey. Full story: New Law Journal.

Fury over Eastenders' 'misleading' social work storyline
Social workers and campaigners have condemned an 'inaccurate' and 'misleading' storyline on the BBC soap Eastenders, which showed a social worker removing a baby from a teenage mother. Full story: Community Care.

CASES
Y v Y [2012] EWHC 2063 (Fam) (27 June 2012)
High Court. Financial remedy case, involving inherited assets, determined on 'needs' basis. Wife awarded a lump sum of £8.7 million, equalling 32.5% of the net assets. Full report: Family Law Week.

Musa & Ors v Holliday & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1268 (15 October 2012)
Appeal against order made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.

Kremen v Agrest [2012] EWCA Civ 1266 (18 September 2012)
Applications for permission to appeal the judgment in Kremen v Agrest (No.11) (Financial Remedy: Non-Disclosure: Post-Nuptial Agreement). Full report: Family Law Week.

London Borough of Sutton v Gray & Ors [2012] EWHC 2604 (Fam) (12 October 2012)
Care proceedings in respect of two sisters, one living with grandparents under a Special Guardianship Order, the other with foster parents. The father was exonerated from injuring one child, and issue of the threshold in respect of the other child adjourned. Full report: Bailii. Discussed by suesspiciousminds - see below.

London Borough of Sutton v Gray & Ors [2012] EWHC 2763 (Fam) (12 October 2012)
Further hearing in the above case. The grandparents agreed to that child returning to the mother, and the local authority withdrew their allegations in respect of the other child. Full report: Bailii.

R.P. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 38245/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1796 (09 October 2012)
The applicant complained about a decision to take her daughter into local authority care, relying on Article 6 (1). Held, there had been no violation of her rights under Article 6(1). Full report: Bailii. See also the UK Human Rights Blog post, below.

Knecht v Romania (App No 10048/10) (2 October 2012)
The applicant had embryos stored at a fertility clinic in Romania. When a criminal investigation took place at the clinic the embryos were moved to the institute of forensic medicine, a State facility, which was not authorised to function as a genetic bank. The woman alleged a breach of her Art 8 rights under the European Convention in respect of her being prevented from becoming a parent. Report: Family Law. Full report: ECHR.

SB v A Local Authority & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1269 (10 October 2012)
Care proceedings. Appeal by father against findings of fact. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.

KH (A child), Re [2012] EWHC B18 (Fam) (05 October 2012)
Application by NHS Trust for declarations in relation to the medical treatment of a severely disabled boy, including the withholding of life-sustaining treatment in the event of a serious deterioration in his condition. Full report: Bailii.

ARTICLES
Enhancing the Role of Grandparents in the Current Legal Landscape
Julie Stather, barrister, of 42 Bedford Row suggests some ways to benefit children by strengthening the position of grandparents. Full article: Family Law Week.

The High Sheriff of Oxfordshire’s Annual Law Lecture
'Out of his shadow: The long struggle of wives under English Law', a speech given by Lord Wilson on the 9th October. Full speech: Supreme Court (PDF).

Common Sense Prevails
"The recent, anonymised judgment in A v A [2012] has come as a welcome relief to divorcing spouses, and to professionals involved in financial remedy proceedings. Individuals' private financial affairs revealed under compulsion through the courts can now ordinarily expect to remain confidential." Says James Copson in Family Law.

BLOGS
A tapestry of justice
A discussion of London Borough of Sutton and Gray 2012 – in which the High Court determined that an earlier finding of fact that a father had shaken a child, causing injuries (and for which father went to prison) was wrong and had been in effect a miscarriage of justice. Full post: suesspiciousminds.

Judge rules brain-damaged Muslim should not be resuscitated
"A man left brain-damaged after a massive heart attack should not be resuscitated, a High Court judge has ruled, despite the likelihood of him wishing to be were he conscious." Full post: Marilyn Stowe Blog.

In the name of God: ultra-orthodox Jewish education not in children’s best interest, rules Court of Appeal.
A discussion of the case Re G (Children). Full post: UK Human Rights Blog.

Autonomy and the role of the Official Solicitor – whose interests are really being represented?
A discussion of the R.P. and others v United Kingdom case (see above). Full post: UK Human Rights Blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.