M v P Fam Div 01.09.06

Adopting a purposive construction of the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (The Hague Convention) 1980. The court held that a Greek father had failed to show that an English mother’s removal of A, to the UK, had been wrongful in Greek law. She had been granted provisional and exclusive care of the child and was entitled to select a place of residence for the child outside the jurisdiction of the Greek court.

Westcar v Westcar CA 04.10.06
An appeal was partially allowed against the extension for 12 months of an injunction with power of arrest attached the CA holding that the judge had been wrong to extend the injunction with a power of arrest where there was no evidence of any actual violence or threat by the husband as required by s 47 (2) of the Family Law Act 1996. The injunction was varied to last as long as the suspended committal order already in place.


Re G (a child) (education) CA 05.10.06
The CA held that a deputy judge of the High Court, on appeal from the county court, erred in ordering that a child attend a school in Bedfordshire where his father worked, when the mother, with whom the child resided under an Australian order, had relocated to Dorset.


L and another v Reading Borough Council and others QBD 06.10.06
Having regard to the decision in D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 All ER 443. The court held it was to be inferred that a duty of care was not owed to parents in respect of any aspect of an investigation into the abuse of children.


VB v VB Fam Div 17.10.06
Court held that a Father’s four weekly schedule for contact was over complicated for children aged between 5 years and nine months who needed a recognized and understandable timetable. The Mother’s fortnightly schedule was therefore preferred.


Currey v Currey CA 18.10.06
It was held a judge’s exercise of his discretion in making an upwards variation of a periodical payments to a husband for costs up to the FDR appointment could not be criticised notwithstanding him already owing the wife £46,000 in costs. The application was for clean break order and was brought by the wife therefore the husband needed to be able to defend himself against this


F (children) (adoption: notice of hearing) CA 18.10.06

The CA held in proceedings for adoption brought under the Adoption and Children Act