|
|
|
In order to demonstrate the open nature of the family justice system Lord Justice Wall took the unusual step of reserving judgment and giving full written judgment in two cases where he refused leave to appeal to two appellant fathers acting in person in contact cases. After full explanation of his reasons for refusing leave in the individual cases he reiterated his earlier comments in Re O [2004] 1 FLR 1258 about the importance the court attaches the contact and the need for parents to take responsibility for the failure of contact. |
|
It was held that a kyogi rikon (a Japanese form of divorce by consent which takes effect once registered) is a divorce 'obtained by means of proceedings' for the purposes of section 46(1) of the Family Law Act 1986. The judge therefore declined to refuse recognition of that divorce under section 51(3) of the Act and rejected the petition for nullity under section 11(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. |
|
HK v Finland ECHR 26.09.06 |
|
The ECHR awarded €5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to an Applicant after holding that his rights under art 8 of the Convention had been infringed by his child had been taken into public care without his consent and without an order under the relevant domestic legislation. Once orders under the relevant domestic legislation had been made his rights under art 8 were no longer infringed. Restrictions on his contact with the child were also held to have infringed art 8, as the applicant had not been given an opportunity to contest those restrictions. |