Re F (indirect contact through third party) CA 02.11.06

The CA upheld the President of the Family Division’s decision to make an order for indirect contact between a father and child through CAFCASS Legal in London.

Re: Brandon Webster, Norfolk County Council v Webster Fam Div 02.11.06

Munby J set aside an order for reporting restrictions in respect of care proceedings substituting an order allowing the media to attend the forthcoming hearing and to report the names of the parents and child.

J v C Fam Div 10.11.06

In a case where the whereabouts of the father who commenced contact proceedings were no longer known the court declined to make an order of its own motion directing the mother inform the child of his true father’s identity.


S v S Fam Div 10.11.06

Applying the principles set out in Miller v Miller and Macfarlane v Macfarlane the court awarded a wife £3 million having regard to her needs and entitlement whilst making no allowance in her favour in respect of conduct or compensation.

Re D (a child) (abduction: foreign custody rights) HL 16.11.06

An appeal against the return of a child to Romania was allowed where the Romanian court had previously determined that the removal of a child from Romania was not ‘wrongful’.

C v S Fam Div 16.11.06

A mother received permission to permanently remove a child to Australia immediately where the father had sought to delay this until 2008 and for the child to attend pre-school in the UK.

Legder-Beadell and another v Peach and another Chancery Div 17.11.06
While in the instant case the presumption of resulting trust readily gave way to contrary intention manifested at the date of purchase it was held that the first defendant held the remaining proceeds of sale on constructive trust for the claimants (her ex-partner’s parents), less the amount of her expenditure on the property.


B and others v A County Council CA 21.11.06
During adoption proceedings, a local authority gave adopters an assurance that their identity would not be disclosed to the child’s birth family. The court held that the authority owed a continuing duty of care towards the adoptive parents to ensure that the terms of its undertaking were respected by its employees. The adoptive parents claim for damages was however unsuccessful as the court held that their allegation of damage was not made out.


Re B (a child) (contact: parent’s liability to pay child support) CA 23.11.06

CA dismissed a father’s appeal against an order reducing his contact to just below 104 nights a year and thereby significantly increasing his liability (under the old scheme) for child maintenance. Whilst anomalies in the current child support legislation could properly be said to give rise to substantial injustice, they were irrelevant to determination of the optimum level of a parent’s contact with a child.


Morgan v Hill CA 28.11.06
The court allowed in part the appeal of a father against an order under schedule 1 CA 1989 and reduced the lump sum element from £100,000 to £50,000 to take into account the responsibility of the father of mother’s elder child. It was held that Paragraph 10(3)(b) of Sch 1 empowered the court to alter an agreement provided it was satisfied that it did not contain proper financial arrangements with respect to the child.

C (children) appointment of a guardian CA 28.11.06

Held that in contact proceedings, where the father had undergone gender re-assignment surgery, the judge had been wrong to refuse to join the children as parties and appoint the National Youth Advisory Service (NYAS) as the guardian, in order to secure NYAS’s involvement to advise the mother on how to impart the truth about the father to the children.

B v D and another Fam Div 29.11.06

In allowing the appeal of a mother with learning difficulties against the refusal of a residence order the court held that the justices had failed to address the true issue, namely whether there were cogent reasons existing which dictated that the child could not live with the mother.

Stringer v Stringer CA 29.11.06

The CA re-stated that there is no jurisdiction for a court to impose conditions on a s.91(14) order.

Re A (a child) (disclosure of child’s existence to paternal grandparents)
Fam Div 01.12.06
In care proceedings the father sought an order preventing disclosure of the child’s existence to his family the application would be dismissed the court holding it would be contrary to the child’s rights to deprive her of the opportunity that the paternal family could look after her.