Monday, April 29, 2019

News Essentials: 29th April 2019


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

NEWS
Boy must leave mother with 'hateful feelings' for father, judge rules
Eight-year-old has to live with father to avoid significant emotional harm, parents told. Full story: The Guardian. See the MFS case, below.

Legal aid changes to streamline family work
New approach from 19 April 2019. Full story: Family Law Week.

'Not good enough' - Munby criticises regional divorce centre errors
Days after the most senior family judge apologised to practitioners for delays and inefficiencies at the regional divorce centres, his outspoken predecessor has criticised HM Courts & Tribunals Service for being 'unable or unwilling' to resource them adequately. Full story: Law Society Gazette. See the Baron case, below.

Court of Appeal sets aside 'absurd' care decision after 'shambolic' case
The Court of Appeal has delivered an excoriating assessment of a judge’s ‘unprecedented’ summary dismissal of care proceedings at an interim procedural stage. Full story: Law Society Gazette. See H-L (Children), below.

Legal Aid Agency guidance on interpreters at court clarified
The Legal Aid Agency has revised its Guidance on Remuneration of Expert Witnesses to clarify payments for legally aided interpreters at court. Full story: Family Law Week.

Separated families population statistics: April 2014 to March 2017
Estimates of the separated families population and their child maintenance arrangements. Analysis also shows separated families with no arrangement. Full story: Department for Work and Pensions.

CASES
Giusti v Ferragamo [2019] EWCA Civ 691 (17 April 2019)
Appeal by wife against order staying her English divorce petition, and dismissing her application for a single joint expert to be instructed to provide an opinion on Italian law. Full report: Bailii.

G-L-T (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 717 (17 April 2019)
Care proceedings. Appeal by father against finding that he had 'failed to protect' his son by failing to inform various medical professionals that he was no longer suffering from seizures or apnoea. Appeal allowed. Full report: Bailii.

Grandison & Anor v Joseph [2019] EWHC 977 (Fam) (01 April 2019)
Appeal by husband against order requiring him to transfer the legal title to 42 properties from either the joint names of the parties or the wife's name into his sole name, and obtain the release of the wife from her obligations under the mortgages on the properties. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.

H-L (Children: Summary Dismissal of Care Proceedings) [2019] EWCA Civ 704 (17 April 2019)
Appeal by local authority against summary dismissal of care proceedings. Appeal allowed. Full report: Bailii.

Baron & Ors (4 Defective Divorces) [2019] EWFC 26 (17 April 2019)
Applications by the Queen's Proctor for the setting aside of decrees in four different cases on the ground that the petitions had been presented before the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage. Full report: Bailii.

H (Abduction: Retention In Non-Contracting State), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 672 (16 April 2019)
Appeal by mother against order under Hague Convention for return of child to Australia, on ground that the act relied on as constituting the alleged wrongful retention took place in a state which is not a party to the Convention. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.

MFS (Appeal: Transfer of Primary Care) [2019] EWHC 768 (Fam) (29 March 2019)
Application by mother for permission to appeal against order that child move to live with his father. Permission refused. 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.