The court considered whether a father’s application for the return of his son to Australia under the 1980 Hague Convention should be denied due to a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b). Although the removal of the child to the UK was found to be wrongful, the court determined that returning the child would expose him to intolerable conditions. The judgment highlighted the insufficiency of the proposed protective measures, taking into account the mother’s mental health and allegations of domestic abuse. The decision underlines the court’s paramount consideration of the child’s welfare in international abduction cases.

The court considered whether a victim of abuse could share their experiences of the family court system through public speaking and media, balancing their Article 10 right to freedom of expression with the child's right to privacy under Article 8. The application was partially granted, permitting public discourse using an alias, with a clear obligation to protect the child’s anonymity. The father's parallel request to share his perspective was refused to prevent further abuse and privacy infringements.

The High Court assessed whether a deprivation of liberty resulting from a child’s residential care arrangement required court authorisation under Article 5 of the ECHR. It was determined that informed and voluntary consent from those holding parental responsibility could sufficiently validate such an arrangement. As a result, the care order application was withdrawn, and the deprivation of liberty order was discharged, highlighting the significance of parental consent in this context.

The court addressed a case where a mother removed her children to a non-Hague Convention country without the father's consent. Upon their return to the UK, the court prioritised the children’s welfare and stability, deciding they should remain living with the mother. The father was granted supervised contact, subject to review after the completion of a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators programme. This case highlights the paramountcy of children’s welfare in international abduction cases, even where strict Hague provisions do not apply.

This episode explores a fact-finding hearing involving the wrongful removal of children from Afghanistan to the UK. The court ruled that the father acted unlawfully by removing the children without the mother's consent. However, it also found the mother engaged in both emotional and physical abuse of the children. While there was no evidence of deliberate parental alienation by the father, the litigation dynamics negatively influenced the children's perceptions. Further hearings will determine appropriate child arrangement orders.

The court addressed whether reasonable financial provision had been made under the Inheritance Act 1975 for a claimant and her minor child. The claimant was awarded a family home and lump sum to reflect their needs and a fair proportion of the £6 million estate. Issues of estate administration delays and associated costs were highlighted, particularly the executor's failure to discharge responsibilities effectively, impacting the timing of distributions.

The Family Court considered whether a Nigerian adoption order for twin girls could be recognised in England under common law. The court confirmed that the adoption complied with necessary procedural and substantive criteria, aligning with English legal standards. The decision emphasised the children's welfare and their expressed wishes as central to legal recognition.

The court upheld a Joint Lives With Order to emphasise the importance of both parents’ involvement in the child’s upbringing while maintaining a split in care weighted in favour of one parent. Historical behaviours were assessed against current parenting capability, recognising the consistent efforts of one parent to maintain contact. The judgment rejected relocation to prioritise stability for the child but allowed scope for future applications if circumstances change.

The court dismissed allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour following a fact-finding hearing. It found that the allegations lacked consistency, and the evidence suggested external family pressures on the complainant. The judgment emphasised the importance of evaluating patterns of behaviour holistically, while also reinforcing the need for credible and consistent evidence in such claims.

The court considered an application for permission to appeal a fact-finding judgment regarding allegations of domestic abuse and the impact on child welfare. The application was dismissed as the appeal lacked merit, with no procedural errors or evidence of judicial bias established. This decision underscores the high threshold for successfully appealing findings of fact in family law cases.