In our second legal update, we cover a wide range of cases and updating legal guidance; from Parental Responsibility and change of name, to adoption and fact-finding.
Case Law
M&F (2024) – this case involves a father on the Birth Certificate (therefore having Parental Responsibility (PR)) having a negative DNA test. The Court confirmed that an order was required to remove his PR (a declaration or re-registration of birth not being enough) and had to decide whether father should retain PR in this manner, or whether a CAO live with order should be made.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/377.html
RQ&TS (2024) – this case involved a change of surname application, with a useful summary of the law
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2024/2509
Re C (2024) – the trial court denied the name change for a child who identified as non-binary, with the name change being from one associated with that of a male person to one commonly used by either gender. The child was 15 at the time of trial and had been using the preferred name for 3 years by that point. The Court of Appeal found that the consideration of the child’s emotional needs was lacking and allowed the appeal
Re R&C (2024) – this Court of Appeal case usefully summarises the law in respect of adoption vs foster care, with a focus on contact provisions within each regime
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1302.html
Re P&E (2024) – this Court of Appeal case summarises the correct approach of the Court when considering whether or not to list for a fact finding. In this case, a very young baby sustained serious injuries which were likely to be non-accidental according to medical experts. The parenting assessment was extremely positive but the assessor was unable to recommend rehabilitation, given the risk of harm. The trial court declined to order for a fact find, given the resulting delay. This was successfully appealed, given the risks remained unknown and so it followed that appropriate safeguards to manage that risk could not have been identified
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/403.html
Re D (2024) – this is a crucial case when Hair Strand Test (HST) results are disputed. The Court of Appeal sets out a ‘good practice’ approach of advocates when reviewing and presenting the HST results (paragraph 58) and reminds us that HST results are only a part of the broader picture. The expert recommended a second sample to be obtained as “the results from various providers can vary and hence duplicate analyses can provide vital additional evidence”. The decision of the Court was in relation to interim separation and this recommendation was not followed, and significant weight was placed on (misunderstood) positive HST results, whilst neglecting to take into account the fact that the care being provided to the children from their carer was very good.
Lord Justice Peter Jackson added in his judgment (para 68) that the fact that the 13 year old child was not consulted about interim removal by the Guardian (who supported interim removal) meant that the child could not provide any views on the same or anything that may have evidential value when considering the concerns of substance use. He reminds us of PD16A, which requires a Guardian to advise the court about wishes & feelings in respect of any matter relevant to the proceedings.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/498.html
Legal Guidance
Late 2024/early 2025 has seen the publication of key guidance for family lawyers, from both the Family Justice Council and the President of the Family Division.
- Family Justice Council guidance on cases involving Alienating Behaviour
- Family Justice Council guidance on cases involving Neurodiversity
- Practice Guidance on the use of Intermediaries
- President’s Guidance on public law cases with an international element
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PFD-ICACU-Guidance.pdf
