Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Family > Flashcards

Family Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Kelly v kelly

A

father unable to stop abortion as the child needs a seperate existance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Re F

A

A foetus has no legal rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Vo v France

A

Amniotic sac ruptrued. accused of uniintentional homicide- but this requires legal personality. She reffered to art 2 ECHR ‘right to life to be protected by law’
she could have gone down civil proceeding but time was up

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Elliot v Joicey

A

Nasciturus Rule
If child could be/ is born alive can have legal personality if it is to their advantage.
In this case after the death of the testator, the child born afterwards had a right to inheritance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Cohen v shaw

A

nasciturus rule- child born after negligent deth of father in road accident- child had right to sue under damages scotland act 1976 (now 2011) as child of the deceased
Damages can also be sued for if there is antenatal injury- delict.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Hamilton v Fife Health Board

A

SUed for personal damage caused by negligent use of forceps and stress. Baby died shortly after birth
nascituris held to not be applicable as not the child suing or benefiting.
Appealed due to macwilliams. Held by inner house that to sue for damages there must be DAMNUM (loss) and INJURIA (wrongful act)
This case noted that; a foetus is not a person in the eyes of the law (at least in relation to civil remedies- there can be no liabiloty to pay damages to a foetus even though has susteained injury from negligent act.
however once on birth it ceases to be a foetus and becomes a person- there is concurrance of injuria and damnum. The existancec of this is not dependant on any fiction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Macwilliams

A

the parents of a cild who has died after being born of injuries sustained in utero, they have a title to sue for damages of death of that child
Lord Morton- that the act which casues injury and the acual sustaining of the injury (death) needn’t occur simultaneously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Bolam

A

Caan raise action for negligent doctor so long as have not conferred to a practice generally and routinly adopted by a responsible medical body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

D v Berkshire Community Council

A

english case
child born with severe withdrawal symptooms and placed in intensive care
court when looking at welfare of child need to look at past i.e before birth Art 16 1995 Childrens act and art 3 UNCRC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Udale

A

Neglgent sterilisation. damages awarded for pain and suffering of gestation
joy of child and benefits of love offset against economic loss and inconvenience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Emeh

A

Neg steriz- resulted in congentially abnormal child. awarded damages for pain/suffering and loss of earnigns prior to birth but also loss of future earnings, child maintenance and also extra costs. this case was positivly followed by Thake v Maurice- dissmissing again the claim that love and joy offset extra costs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

MacFarlyne

A

4 kids neg steriz- HOL said pregnancy was a form of personal injuries so could be compensated for the pain/suffering.
But can’t claim damages for pure economic loss as caparo test of being fair just and resonable (for doctors to effectivly pay for upkeep of child- too remote a causation) was not fuffilled
The case of Allan was overturned by macfaryle as it limited what you could claim for in daages for both wronful preganc and wrongful birth.
This case is about the upkeep of a healthy child- lord syne and lord clyde both raised concerns about its applicability for cases re dasabled kids

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Cattanach

A

Said expenses were recoverable- this went against macfarlyne- in australia but they don’t have the caparo test- found that was liable for maintenance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Byrne

A

Irish case going along with Macfarlyne

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Anderson

A

NIMMO SMITH!!!!
not given correct genetic counciling- 2 boys born with muscular dystrophey. Under law of delict had both suffered personal injuries so could claim soltatium and patrimonial loss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Maclelland

A

child born with downs as was not identified at time abortion could of taken place.
Held that both parties entitled to claim solatium for distress
initially were going to also award cost of maintenance - lord macfadyne discussed how he would not limit it to the costs associated with just bringing up a disable child nor did he accet that th costs incurred should be offset against costs the pursuers wouldv’e spent on a health child.
but macfarlyne had come out so it was not considered just and resonable under caparo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Rand

A

Downs not detected/ had to give up business. In england claimed damages under economic loss- upheld this was due to hadley byrne principle - finincial loss flowing form disability not existance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Hardman

A

failure to test for rubella. Damages only awarded for EXTRA costs stemming from child disability. they referred to what lord styne had said in macfarlene ‘I commutors on a london underground were asked who should bear the costs of bringing up an handicapped child, a substantial majorty would say the expense should fall on the worngdoer. This case was fllowed by Parkinson re child with autism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Rees

A

Disbaled woman. neg steriz. Initially only awarded pain damages due to macfarlyne but judge said that neg steriz should be awarded with £15,000 due to ‘breach of womans automony to plan life as she wishes’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Parkinson

A

in this the autistic child born due to neg steriz. court awarded extra costs due to deisability.
Lady Justic Hale provided alternitive opinion supporting the inner house in macfarlyne- she said that when a woman became pregant against her will this is an invasion of her bodily privacy- include physiological and physchological changes which ‘one life is no longer ones own’
This case is the precedent in this area

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Gillick

A

16 y/o. went for contraception.
This resulted in section 2(4)- consent to medical treatment so long as understand.
Gillick compentent applies in england along with best interests rul, in scotland have that you are entirly elegible through maturity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Fourman v Fourman

A

14 y/o enetered proceedings under s2(4A)- didn’t want to move to OZ
Granted legal aid
Mothers action for s.11 specifit issue order not upheld

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

G v H

A

15 y/o boy raised contact action to see sister

held not competent as she was not his legal guardian

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

E v E

A

contact action to see half siblings based on art 8 ECHR right to private and family life.
Imposed order on parents to allow kids to see each other

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

R v Legal Aid

Henderson v Henderson

A

Legal aid will not be applied if they feel that the children are just restating parents views. wont pay to duplicate represenation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Sheilds v Sheilds

A

Move to OZ
Boy when court case opened too young for soliciter yet by the time actually went to court was 9 and deemed to have maturity so able instruct solicitor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Rees v Lowe

A

Child is competent as witness when judge satisfied knows difference between truth and lies and duty to tell truth
in this case witness was 3 y/o girl- decided court would be too traumatic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Whitehall

A

cannot compel someone to take a dna test ‘invasion of bodily privacy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Bangham

A

stepfather not awarded custody

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Mcgynne

A

presumptive challange does not get rid of presummed PRR’s including right to consnet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Snith v Greehil

A

If seeking to disestablish paternity not give consent- only if seeking to establish it- in this case they decided not to draw adverse inference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Petrie v Petrie

A

Mother didn’t consent but courts decided that it was better for the doubts to be resolved- truth always in the child’s best interests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

C v S

A

Surrogate must consent - however in this case commisioning parents were looking after the child and it didn;t know birth mother they were awarded custody as in paramount interests of child

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

F v F

A

anyone with legitimate interest in the child can apply and be enterained in court for s.11 order- in US have to actually have PRR’s to apply to court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Glass

A

Decision to treat child against mothers wish interfered with her PPR’s and her art 8 right to private and family life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

D v H

A

this case goes against liberalising and empowering law we strive to achieve. contact with sister denied- act didn;t cntemplate this under 16
E v E had a different approach- to stay in line with ECHR and UN convention- said that s.11 shuld not be interpreted restrictivly- confered rights of contact on parents as opposed to child who was under 16

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Principles for s.11 order

A

welfare of child is paramount

shouldn’t make order unless it is better than making no order at all - minimum intervention principle (status quo- Beinigan, Hannah and Black)

As far as practicle listen to the views of the child and take them into account- this is in recognition of UNCRC art 12- childrens views have a right to be expressed and hear in judicial hearings (subject to rees whetehr actually take into account)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Is art 12 incorporated?

NGO report to UN on UNCRC implementation in Scotland

A

disporoportionate effect of uk government austerity on vunrble children

cuts in legal aid and continued lack of justice

age of criminal responsibility still 8- one of lowest in europe

UNCRC still not been fully incorporated

39
Q

Early v Early

Meredit v Meredith

A

lesbian mother was deemed not to be good role model for son so put in fathers custody- broke status quo priciple.
this type of action and discrimination is unlikly to occur today due to uncrc art 2

40
Q

Sloss v taylor

A

Unmarried man sucessfully applied for custody

41
Q

Mackechnie

A

religion- father atheist- siad would deny children of right to religion

42
Q

nattal v Osbourne

A

Race- osbourne surprisingly allowed to have custody but had to reguarly take child to see mother in jamacia and had to teach child about her heritage

43
Q

Broxy

A

This raised the question of maternal position- especially in infancy

44
Q

how do kids have views heard

A 
s.6- have right to be consulted on welfare 
curator appointed
parents appoint expert 
judge speak directly with child 
join as party
45
Q

Harris

A

deemed there was no criminal or evil intention despite fact child hit with belt- unlikly be tolerated today

46
Q

A v UK

A

step father

uk found to be in preach of art 3 ‘no one should be subject to torture. UL asked to reform their laws on chastisement

47
Q

Guest

A

Father smacking 8y/o in fit of anger not deemed to have criminal mens rea- blow was exessive but not evil

48
Q

Peebles v Mcphail

A

mother slapped 2 y/o on face knocking him over charged with assult and appeal refused
judge- ‘to slap a 2 y/o on the face knocking him off balance is as far from reasonable chastisement as one can possibly imagine’

49
Q

T v T

A

Rees criteria on competency never comes into effect unless child directly elects in court to give evidence

50
Q

Blance v Blance

A

it is the duty of the resident parent to ensure that contact is enforced by all means short of physical force

51
Q

Russel

A

If child is severly distressed is it really in their best interests to continue contact? need look at longterm welfare- onus on parent show will bring positive aspect

52
Q

Treasure v macGrath

A

’ the dividing line between listening to a child and doing what a child wants is a thin one’
10 y/o viewed as having normal maturity for child of that age so not appropriate to take views into account

53
Q

G v G

A

In this case it was stated taht the courts only have a responsibility to listen to the child twice (expressed views through social workers as court reporters this view was overcome by shilds- said have responsibility to continualy listen to childs views

54
Q

McGrath

A

begin with entitlement to disclose THEN decide if this will have significant harm on the child- no confirmation when child gives views

55
Q

Ray v D

A

would disclosure cause significant harm to child? if yes- would their long term interests benefit from non- disclosure?

56
Q

Dosso

A

Didn’t want father to knwo what said in court. He claimed under art 6 and 8. Judge held for them to be able to express their views- need be allowed confidentiality

57
Q

B v G

A

observed that parctically there is a limit as to extent one can physically force a child into contact- in this case father had abused mother.

58
Q

Porchetta

A

The prevailing interests of the child are paramount

59
Q

Sanderson v MacManus

A

Parent had not intrinsic right to access, no intimate right- needed to prove something extra- owness of proof- in us called Biology plus

60
Q

White v White

A

Got rid of term in sanderson - test now that welfare of child is paramount - no longer owness to prove acess

61
Q

Lamont

A

It may be enough just for the parent to prove a benefit

there is however no presumption that father should have contact though courts usually see it as a good thing

62
Q

shearer

A

Mother drank so residence order favoured father

63
Q

Mcmichael case

A

provided for greater concern for unmarried fathers within CHS

64
Q

Geddes

A

tehre was agression and violence on fathers side so order not made

65
Q

Family named professional

A

so don’t fail to get services as are being presumed to be dealt with by other agency
co-ordinate actions to benefit child
prevent further and unceccesary state intervention
Must do assesment of risk- based on likliehood/potential of significant harm

66
Q

Emergency protection orders

A

if at risik 3 options;
with parental consent can remove and accomodate child
CPO if can no longer act voluntarily- resonable grounds must be satisfied for sig harm or potential of sig harm
if grounds of suspicion can make equiries

67
Q

Radmacher v Granatino

A

In the wake of this case, engliish law has begun to respect pre-nups. also since this case the english courts have tended to disregard agreements containing predjudics toward children.

Variation of periodicalallowance or aliment
only if parties have written in that thi is allowedbut joint minute with aliment written in can be recalled if contains a periodical

Statutor challange
if not deemed fair and reasonable Macaky- set aside as man failed to disclose info on significant pension interests
Clarkson

68
Q

Anderson

A

this case sets the precedent that pre-nups are binding

69
Q

Horton v Horton

A

court cannot apply for s.11 order if a residence or contact order has already been signed

70
Q

Norton v HOrton

A

neither party may withdraw from the joint minute it is

71
Q

J v Childrens reproter for sitrlling

A

putting a a child in secure accomodation iis complient with convention of human rights- art 5

72
Q

Ingils v Ingils

A

she had knowlede of pension but she renounced this claim as it sped up husbands departure from home

73
Q

Worth v worth

A

in this case parties were on good terms and decided not to take independant legal advice, forgot about pension rights so term of agreement was reduced

74
Q

Gillon

A

court held that including thepension the agreement was fair and resonable - she had also recieved hoome at substantial discount- court decided nt to vary order

75
Q

Macafee

A

the legal advice is a factor to be taken into account pbut nt the only one to bear in mind when deciding what is fair and reasonable

76
Q

Clarkson

A

sheriff decided agreement to be set aside as husband failed to disclose substantial vaat liabilities

77
Q

Kibble

A

took prurposive view on moa are vunerable to attack under s.16 if unfair

78
Q

s.16

A

agreement can only be reduced or variedd under s.16 either before a decree is graanted or within sucha time that court may specify

79
Q

T. Quail the begining of the end

A

If the client advises you not to obtain a valuation of any particular asset or if the clients wish to insert an agreed value of any asset (whether it be the matrimonial home, a transfer value of a pension or an actuarial valuation of a pension in payment), the agreement should reflect this.

80
Q

M v I

A

nature of cohbaitation- in thi case no hesitation that they were cohabiting

81
Q

Harley v Robertson

A

defender admitted they had been cohabiting but sheriff after arguing found out had only been cohabittatin for 7 months and had fractured relationship

82
Q

M v T

A

defender said cohabitation had ended following unwanted sexual advances so didn;t share a bed. yet they continued to share a house and presented as a couple howver in april 2011 wife asked to move out

83
Q

Gutcher v Butcher

A

illustrates the knife ede of cohabitation. Despiete him saying that if they were married their living arrangements would be the same because of their financial agreements were deemed not to be cohabiting

84
Q

Gow v grant

A

at supreme curt money given to wife as seen she woudlnt have sold house had it not been for cohabitation.
didn’t need to show advantage on usbands behalf

85
Q

Whigham v Owenhe

A

cohaitation for 26 years her work had to be compensated

86
Q

Savage

A

same sex relationship deceased didn;t make new will in savages favour but he could of done so no claim to money

87
Q

Time limits

A

if you want money from bereavement must be within 6 months and claim has to be made against exectuor datiff
for non death is 12 months after cessation

88
Q

Finances

A

often stronger than pre-nup as can’t take into account s.16 unless done by force and fear
very hard to agree one

89
Q

Shilliday v Smith

A

spent a lot of money on refururbishment. this was in the contemplation of marriage

90
Q

satchwell v Mackintosh

A

mackitosh said she never contemplated marriage so causa data non secuta didn’t apply
defender must have recieved a benefit
but
taken in the name of one of the cohabitants but the other had contributed to the purchase price and to certain refurbishment costs. The non-entitled cohabitant successfully claimed back the monies directly contributed

91
Q

stack

A

if the property is in one persons name it is for the other to prove shares

92
Q

norrie

A

In England, absent a statute, the matter is analysed as one of “common intention constructive trust”, with the courts aiming to give effect to what is taken to be the intention of the parties. This is not a search for a “fair” outcome (per Baroness Hale at para 61 and Lord Neuberger at paras 127 and 144). In Scotland, however, where the matter is dealt with as unjustified enrichment, notions of fairness are central to the analysis. So, in England (as we learnt last year in Miller; MacFarlane), fairness is central to the division of property at the end of marriage or civil partnership, but at best incidental (as we learn here) at the end of a cohabitation; in Scotland fairness is central at the end of a cohabitation but is no more than a moderating influence on certainty at the end of a marriage or civil partnership.

93
Q

Mackenzie v Nutter

A

• -mackenzies house would be sold but not enough to buy new house so they got mortgage. They lived there together. Miss Mackenzie wouldn’t be entitled to half a claim to the house, she hadn’t contributed at all- unjustified enrichment.
•

Law (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions