Monday, November 20, 2017

News Essentials: 20th November 2017


A brief summary of the essential family law news and cases from the last week:

NEWS
Potential client met with top family law solicitor “to conflict him out” of acting for other side
A leading family law solicitor’s meeting with a potential client was for the purpose of conflicting him out of acting for the other side, the High Court has said as it rejected an application to stop him from doing just that. Full story: Legal Futures. See S v S, below.

Surrogate mother who changed her mind must hand baby to gay couple, court rules
A surrogate mother has lost custody of her child after a court ruled he would be better placed with the gay couple who arranged for her to have the baby. Full story: The Telegraph. See H (A Child : Surrogacy Breakdown), below.

Divorcing parents could lose children if they try to turn them against partner
Measures being trialled to prevent ‘parental alienation’ feature penalties including permanent loss of contact with child. Full story: The Guardian.

Court hears transgender woman's appeal over access to her Jewish children
Lower court previously ruled the children risked greater psychological harm by being ostracised than if direct contact ceased. Full story: The Guardian.

Review to examine rise in care order applications and number of children in care
A sector-led review of the rise in applications for care orders and the number of children in care has been announced. Full story: Local Government Lawyer.

Don't abandon separating families in Brexit, say legal groups
Three influential family law bodies have today warned that a lack of progress on Brexit negotiations could leave tens of thousands of families and children in limbo. Full story: Resolution.

Domestic violence 'masks' other threats to children, Cafcass finds
Domestic abuse can 'mask' other risk factors faced by children, an analysis of serious case reviews by Cafcass has found. Full story: Children & Young People Now.

Judges reject challenge over adoption and special guardianship for half-brothers
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a case brought against Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council over whether a child should be adopted when his older half-brothers, who lived with the same couple, were to be the subject of a special guardianship order. Full story: Local Government Lawyer. See Re T (A Child: Adoption or Special Guardianship).

CASES
S -v- S (Application to Prevent Solicitor Acting) [2017] EWHC 2660 (Fam) (24 October 2017)
Application by husband for an order that the wife's solicitor be debarred from acting for her in divorce proceedings, on the basis of a conflict of interest. Full report: Bailii.

Radseresht v Radseresht-Spain [2017] EWHC 2932 (Fam) (13 October 2017)
Application by husband for, inter alia, declaration recognising divorce granted in Dubai. Full report: Bailii.

H (A Child : Surrogacy Breakdown) [2017] EWCA Civ 1798 (17 November 2017)
Appeal by surrogate mother and her husband against orders made following the breakdown of an intended surrogacy arrangement. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.

R (A Child : whether to revoke Placement Order) [2017] EWHC 2924 (Fam) (09 November 2017)
Application by mother for permission to revoke placement order. Full report: Bailii.

Re X (A Child) (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order) (Restrictions on Travel) [2017] EWHC 2898 (Fam) (15 November 2017)
Case involving concerns over about the possibility of a 14 month old child suffering female genital mutilation should she be taken to Egypt. Full report: Family Law Week.

A Local Authority v M & Ors [2017] EWHC 2851 (Fam) (13 November 2017)
Final welfare decision concerning four children, three of whom are, or have been, severely radicalised. Full report: Bailii.

*      *      *
For more news, see here.

For more cases, see here.

To subscribe to the Family Lore Focus free weekly Newsletter (which includes links to all of the week's top family law news stories, cases, articles and blog posts), go here.

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.