Family Law cases

Question 1

J v C (WP)

Answer 1

Paramount means the course which is most in the interests of the child.

Question 2

Re SL (WP)

Answer 2

Welfare checklist is non-exhaustive.

Question 3

Re G (WP)

Answer 3

Courts held going to an Orthodox school would be in the children’s best interest as the school gave them greater opportunities. The judge must approach a holistic approach.

Question 4

Re B (WP)

Answer 4

Welfare is synonymous with wellbeing and interests.

Question 5

Johansen v Norway and Gurgulu v Germany (WP)

Answer 5

A fair balance has to be struck between the interests of child and parent. However, court will attach importance to the best interests of the child.

Question 6

Hoppe v Germany (WP/Contact)

Answer 6

1. Interests of the child are ‘of particular importance’
2. In cases concerning contact, courts must “exercise exceptional diligence” to avoid a passing of time impacting the likelihood of contact being granted/successful.

Question 7

M v M (Contact)

Answer 7

The long-term advantages to the child of keeping in contact with non-resident parent outweigh the initial upsets from separation.

Question 8

Re G (Contact)

Answer 8

It’s always in the child’s welfare to know and where possible have contact with both parents unless cogent reasons against it (Re O)

Question 9

Re C (Contact)

Answer 9

The judge has a positive duty to attempt to promote contact.

Question 10

Re LVMH (Contact)

Answer 10

There is no presumption that, on proof of domestic violence, the offending parent has to have no contact. The ability of the parent to recognise his past conduct, and the need to change will be considered.

Question 11

Re K and Re H (Contact)

Answer 11

Genuine fear (rational reason to disallow contact) may be caused by prior domestic violence or threats of abduction.

Question 12

Re L (Contact)

Answer 12

Genuine but irrational fear may still be accepted as a reason to disallow contact if the child would suffer emotional harm because of impact on M.

Question 13

PD12J (Contact)

Answer 13

Contact will not expose child to an unmanageable risk of harm. Contact will only be granted if the courts are satisfied that the emotional/physical safety of the parent and child can be secured before, during and after contact.

Question 14

Hokkanen v Finland (Contact)

Answer 14

National authorities “must do their utmost to facilitate” co-operation between the parents.

Question 15

Hansen v Turkey (Contact)

Answer 15

Parents who breach contact orders should be sanctioned.

Question 16

Re H (Threshold)

Answer 16

Suffering is based on the balance of probabilities and is likely to suffer on the basis of a real possibility. Lord Nicholls introduced a balance of probabilities plus.

Question 17

Re B (Threshold)

Answer 17

Rejected the additional “balance of probabilities” plus test introduced in Re H.

Question 18

Humberside CC v B (Threshold)

Answer 18

Courts apply dictionary definition of significant to threshold criteria: ‘considerable, noteworthy, or important.’

Question 19

Re A (Threshold)

Answer 19

Must be causal link between fact on which the local authority relies and harm.

Question 20

Re M (Threshold)

Answer 20

When considering “is suffering” the relevant date is the date on which the LA first took protective measures.

Question 21

Re S-B (Threshold)

Answer 21

A prediction of future harm must be based on findings of actual fact made on the balance of probabilities.
However, the judge should try to identify the pool of possible perpetrators.

Question 22

Lancashire County Council v B (Threshold)

Answer 22

“If it’s clear that either one of the parents or one of the carers caused the harm, the attributable condition is made out and a care order could be made”.

Question 23

WBC v A (Threshold)

Answer 23

No causal link needed between the quality of parenting and the child being beyond parental control.

Question 24

Re B and G (Threshold)

Answer 24

Munby P held that all forms of FGM are significant harm. However, male circumcision is reasonable.

Question 25

Re O and N (Threshold)

Answer 25

If a perpetrator cannot be identified on the balance of probabilities the court should proceed to the welfare stage as the perpetrator may be one of several people.

Question 26

Re J (Threshold)

Answer 26

Suspicion or possibility is not enough to reach the conclusion that a child is suffering or likely to suffer.

Question 27

Re L (Threshold)

Answer 27

Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting.

Question 28

Re MA (Threshold)

Answer 28

The harm must be significant enough to justify the intervention of the State and disturb the autonomy of the parents.

Question 29

Re K (Adoption)

Answer 29

No more important or deep form of order that can be made [than adoption]

Question 30

Re B (Adoption)

Answer 30

Adoption in the UK possesses peculiar finality.

Question 31

Seddon (Adoption)

Answer 31

Post-adoption, Art 8 stops protecting the rights of the birth family – it’s now the adoptive parents who have family life.

Question 32

Re P (Adoption)

Answer 32

Leave for adoption will be granted if the parent can: 1. Show there is a change in circumstances since the placement order 2. Prospect of success and impact of the child (Re B-S)

Question 33

Re LG (Adoption)

Answer 33

First case of parent successfully revoking an adoption order.

Question 34

YC v UK (Adoption)

Answer 34

It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. Family ties may only be severed in exceptional circumstances.

Question 35

Re B (Adoption)

Answer 35

Lord Wilson: Must be a “high degree of justification” for such order to be made.
Lord Neuberger: Adoption order in case such as this is a “last resort” and must be “proportionate” and “necessary” in accordance with Art 8.
Lady Hale: such an order should only be made when “nothing else will do.”

Question 36

Re B-S (Adoption)

Answer 36

3 principles to be drawn for Re B:

1. Child’s interest to be brought up by natural family. 2. The Court “must” consider all available options when coming to a decision.
2. Courts should consider support the LA can offer families.

Question 37

Re R (Adoption)

Answer 37

Re B-S wasn’t intended to and had not changed the law – there is no higher standard for adoption orders.

Question 38

Re LPR (Adoption)

Answer 38

Courts must apply a holistic approach to adoption.

Question 39

Re W (Adoption)

Answer 39

The phrase “nothing else will do” is and another way of saying that it must be proportionate and necessary. It’s not proportionate or necessary to take child from adoptive parents and return to kinship carers once settled.

Question 40

Re T (Adoption)

Answer 40

The importance of letting the new family find its own feet ought not to be threatened”

Question 41

G (Adoption)

Answer 41

The views of the adoptive parents must be treated as ‘virtually determinative of the question’ of whether there should be contact.