Re J (a Child care proceedings: fair trial) CA 11.05.06

An appeal against a care order in circumstances where the LA had not followed good practice guidelines in respect of an important meeting was dismissed. The court held that trial judges should be extremely cautious in elevating an alleged failure by a local authority to comply with good practice into a breach of a parent's human rights

Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council QBD 11.05.06.2006

The LA’s application to strike out a claim in negligence arising from the registration of children on the at risk register was allowed. It was held that given the important policy considerations underlying it, the principle that Doctors and Social Workers who failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in erroneously concluding that a child was at risk of abuse from one or both of its parents were not liable in negligence to the parents of the child withstood the coming into force of the Human Rights Act.

Re D (a Child Care Proceedings) Fam Div 11.05.06

A Father was allowed to adduce fresh evidence on appeal from a decision of justices committing the child to the care of the LA and freeing her for adoption since the evidence (a cognitive profile) was such that it could not be ignored or set to one side.

Re C and another (children) (parent: purported marriage between two women; artificial insemination by donor) CA 15.05.06
Held that in English law marriage was exclusively the union of a man and a woman and therefore having regard to the words 'a party to a marriage' in s 27 (1) (a) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, and the corresponding words 'the other party to that marriage' in s 27(1)(b), there had to be a man in order for there to be a marriage.

Re G (a child) (parental responsibility) CA 17.05.06
Held that a parental responsibility order was not susceptible to suspension. The judge's order granting a father parental responsibility and then suspending it on certain terms was therefore set aside.

Vigreux v Michel and another CA 18.05.06
When allowing an appeal against the refusal of a return order in child abduction proceedings, the CA gave guidance on procedure to be followed in applications under Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 which had been incorporated into the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985.

Re F (children) (contact: lack of reasons) CA 18.05.06

Following appeal a case involving a contact order made where allegations of sexual abuse were tried was sent for retrial as the judgment was held to be so lacking in reasons that it was difficult to see how and why the judge had reached their conclusions.

Miller v Miller , Macfarlane v Macfarlane HL 24.05.06

In the long awaited judgment the HL upheld Singer J award of 5m to the W in Miller (although they did not agree with his treatment of conduct and legitimate expectations) and dismissed the five–year term on the W in Macfarlane’s Ł250,000 periodical payments. Full text of the judgment is available on the HL website. Articles relating to the impact of the judgment can be found at www.familylawweek.co.uk

Re B and anor (children) (allegations of sexual abuse: child’s evidence) CA 25.05.06
In dismissing the appeal of the Father and allowing that of Mother the court re-iterated that great care should be taken when interviewing children and that the guidelines on achieving best evidence set out the principles to be followed.

Martin Dye v Martin Dye CA 25.05.06
In a case concerning the appropriate treatment of pension assets the court noted per curiam that Rule 118(F) of the Family Proceedings (Amendment) No (5) Rules 2005 introduced the new Form P available for use in any case where Form A was filed after 5 December 2006. The form should be used where a pension was significant and a pension sharing order might be made and any completed Form P be in the court bundle