This case considered whether an individual mistakenly registered as a father on a child's birth certificate could acquire parental responsibility under s.4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989. The court concluded that parental responsibility was void ab initio as the individual was neither the biological nor legal parent. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that statutory interpretation must align with the explicit wording and intent of the Children Act.

The High Court, using its inherent jurisdiction, addressed issues of parental alienation, educational neglect, and significant harm concerning an 11-year-old child relocated from Pakistan to England. The court dismissed allegations of sexual grooming against the mother and found that the father's actions, including breaking promises to reunite the child with her mother, caused severe emotional and developmental harm. The judgment emphasised the child’s welfare as the paramount concern under UK family law.

The court considered whether a parental order could be granted under s.54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in the absence of the surrogate’s consent. The case involved a child born via international surrogacy where the surrogate was untraceable. Relying on s.54(7), the court dispensed with the requirement for consent as the surrogate 'could not be found' and ruled that the order promoted the child’s welfare, formalising the parent-child relationship legally.

The case addressed procedural fairness and substantive issues in family court orders concerning child arrangements, non-molestation, and s91(14) restrictions. While the child arrangements and s91(14) orders were upheld, the non-molestation order was set aside due to insufficient judicial reasoning regarding its duration and terms. The matter was remitted for further review, highlighting the importance of clarity in judicial decision-making.

The court considered whether restrictions imposed as part of a care plan for a profoundly disabled child amounted to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It was held that the measures were necessary to address the child's complex medical needs and did not constitute a deprivation of liberty. The Local Authority's application for permission to impose such restrictions was therefore refused.

The court considered whether an adoption order made in Nigeria could be recognised in England. The applicants faced challenges meeting the common law domicile test but successfully argued for recognition under Article 8 of the ECHR to protect family life and the child's legal status. The ruling highlights the importance of human rights considerations in cross-border family law cases involving adoption.

The court reconsidered a return order under the 1980 Hague Convention, assessing whether a child's welfare and objections justified setting aside the original decision. A significant change in circumstances, including the child’s deeply-rooted objections and concerns about intolerability, led the court to rule that enforcing the return would be contrary to the child’s well-being. This case underscores the discretion courts hold under the Hague Convention to prioritise the welfare of older children in exceptional circumstances.

The court assessed whether three children should be summarily returned to the Netherlands under the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother successfully argued against their return under Article 13(b), citing risks of physical and psychological harm due to domestic abuse and inadequate protective measures. While the children objected to the return, the court found their maturity insufficient to independently satisfy the objections threshold under the same article.

The court considered whether an adoption completed in Sierra Leone could be recognised under English law without compliance with section 42(7)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The applicants had not facilitated an assessment of the adoptive family in their home environment within England and Wales, as required by statute. The judgment emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory safeguards to prioritise the welfare of the child and provided guidance on how to address this non-compliance through future applications.

The court considered the principles guiding maintenance pending suit and the legal services provision order under family law. The judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness while balancing the financial needs and resources of both parties. This case underscores the importance of a measured approach in providing interim financial relief during proceedings.