Family Law cases Flashcards
(41 cards)
J v C (WP)
Paramount means the course which is most in the interests of the child.
Re SL (WP)
Welfare checklist is non-exhaustive.
Re G (WP)
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.
Re B (WP)
Welfare is synonymous with wellbeing and interests.
Johansen v Norway and Gurgulu v Germany (WP)
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.
Hoppe v Germany (WP/Contact)
- Interests of the child are ‘of particular importance’
- In cases concerning contact, courts must “exercise exceptional diligence” to avoid a passing of time impacting the likelihood of contact being granted/successful.
M v M (Contact)
The long-term advantages to the child of keeping in contact with non-resident parent outweigh the initial upsets from separation.
Re G (Contact)
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)
Re C (Contact)
The judge has a positive duty to attempt to promote contact.
Re LVMH (Contact)
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.
Re K and Re H (Contact)
Genuine fear (rational reason to disallow contact) may be caused by prior domestic violence or threats of abduction.
Re L (Contact)
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.
PD12J (Contact)
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.
Hokkanen v Finland (Contact)
National authorities “must do their utmost to facilitate” co-operation between the parents.
Hansen v Turkey (Contact)
Parents who breach contact orders should be sanctioned.
Re H (Threshold)
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.
Re B (Threshold)
Rejected the additional “balance of probabilities” plus test introduced in Re H.
Humberside CC v B (Threshold)
Courts apply dictionary definition of significant to threshold criteria: ‘considerable, noteworthy, or important.’
Re A (Threshold)
Must be causal link between fact on which the local authority relies and harm.
Re M (Threshold)
When considering “is suffering” the relevant date is the date on which the LA first took protective measures.
Re S-B (Threshold)
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.
Lancashire County Council v B (Threshold)
“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”.
WBC v A (Threshold)
No causal link needed between the quality of parenting and the child being beyond parental control.
Re B and G (Threshold)
Munby P held that all forms of FGM are significant harm. However, male circumcision is reasonable.
