On 27 March 2018 Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Peter Jackson handed down judgment in Re W [2018] EWCA Civ 664. It said in its first paragraph that case was “unusual” because as a consequence of immigration difficulties, the mother was willing to return with the children, but may be unable to do so due to having no right to re-enter the USA.  The father would also experience difficulty re-entering the USA if he left to visit the children.

The mother appealed an order that their children should be returned to the USA in accordance with the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (potentially) without her.  

The appeal was allowed and the order that provided for the return of the children to the USA, without the Respondent mother in the event of her visa application being refused, was discharged.

Various news outlets in Canada have reported that a Mother of two children (now aged 14 and 16) is facing the prospect of being extradited to the UK to face criminal charges of child abduction following the decision of a British Columbian Supreme Court Justice on Thursday 5 April.

Irrespective of the merits of the current application it is a salutary reminder that parental child abduction is a crime in this country.

Summary

The UK Supreme Court handed down judgement on 14 February 2018 in Re C (Children), [2018] UKSC 8. The appeal was allowed by a majority decision. The decision of the Supreme Court is significant for international children law as it effects international parents who relocate with their children.

David Hodson, Marianna Michaelides and Lauren Bovington 

Introduction

What happens when a parent, who has abducted a child to this country and would be ordered to return the child immediately under the 1980 Hague Convention, claims asylum for themself and the child?  Which takes precedence? The English High Court has just dealt with this issue.

By Helen Blackburn & Lauren Bovington 

On 15 November 2017 the Court of Appeal will determine the matter of J v B (ultra-orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4. The case was decided by Mr Justice Peter Jackson in January of this year.

By Marianna Michaelides & Lauren Bovington

The case of Egeneonu [2016] EWHC 43 (Fam)  came before Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, this January 2017. The question before the court was relatively simple; whether or not a father’s contempt of court amounted to criminal or civil contempt.

Background

There is a battle in the family courts. The media understandably want to report on family court proceedings and some family practitioners seek to protect the privacy of the family courts especially hearings involving children. This has been intensifying since the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, issued updating guidance on the matter in January 2014.

A paid McKenzie friend, David Bright, has been jailed for perverting the course of justice within family proceedings. Mr. Bright ran an organisation that charges for the services of ‘professional’ McKenzie friends. He was recently sentenced to 12 months in prison at Wood Green Crown Court on 17 October.

There is a battle in the family courts. The media understandably want to report on family court proceedings and some family practitioners seek to protect the privacy of the family courts especially hearings involving children. This has been intensifying since the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, issued updating guidance on the matter in January 2014.