As dedicated family law solicitors, we recognise that to achieve the best possible results for our clients means staying ahead of the curve in legal developments.
As part of a monthly series, our Deputy Head of Family and Children Panel solicitor, Dexter Bonner, details the latest case law, procedural changes and updates in the world of family law.
Future Risk [2024] EWFC 246 (B)
This is a tough read because the parents were able to meet the needs of the child but removal was granted to grandparents based solely on future risk. It is a useful judgment on that basis and also useful because it’s an example of a Judge making a Supervision Order alongside a Special Guardianship Order (only in exceptional cases as per Public Law Working Group Guidelines).
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/246
D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering), Re [2024] EWCA Civ 948
Foster care vs Adoption
This is an interesting appeal from HHJ Tolson KC, in which he denied the final care plan of placement order for an 11-month old child and instead ordered for foster care. This judgment is excellent because it contains the (approved) submissions in respect of foster care vs adoption (para 21).
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2024/948
E, F And G (Interim Child Arrangements) [2024] EWCA Civ 874
Progression of contact before fact-finding
Another appeal from HHJ Tolson KC, who progressed contact in advance of a fact-finding hearing which would deal with serious domestic abuse allegations. He did so despite an opposing opinion from Cafcass (whom the Judge said is “very risk averse these days”). The Court of Appeal found that Cafcass took the correct approach, which is the one within PD12J. Until the allegations of domestic abuse are resolved in a fact-finding hearing, the risks of contact (unless supervised) are likely to be unmanageable. In any case, there is no assumption that contact would progress anyway because it depends on the extent of the findings.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/874.html
TRC v NS [2024] EWHC 80 (Fam)
Vacating fact-finding hearing on receipt of admissions
In this matter, magistrates vacated a fact-finding hearing because the father made admissions, and the bench felt that there was sufficient evidence before the Court and Cafcass to conduct the welfare analysis of the case. The High Court felt that the bench was entitled to decide and had explained its reasoning appropriately in a preamble. Cases of Re H-N (2021) and K v K (2022) relied upon and of course PD12J referred to.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/80.html
This post is part of a new series of legal updates by National Legal Service. You will be able to access future posts on this website and social media.
