Children - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 61 cases, and was prepared on 12 May 2012.

A -v- M (Family Proceedings: Publicity) [2000] 1 FLR 562
2000 FD Charles J	Media, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	In the course of a child residence and contact dispute, M made allegations against F of abuse against the child C. The allegations were investigated and substantially rejected. M passed private court materials to the press. F obtained an injunction against her, but she withdrew from the proceedings. F now sought an injunction against the media. Held: The injunction should be granted. The court's inherent jurisdiction to protect the well being of C. Though materials may be in the public domain, repetitions could still be hurtful and damaging to C. The need for the freedom of speech was to be balanced against the paramount importance given to C's interests. In this case that balance was in favour of the injunction.

In Re N (Leave to withdraw care proceedings) [2000] 1 FCR 258
2000	Children, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	European Convention on Human Rights

In re A (permission to remove child from jurisdiction: human rights) [2000] 2 FLR 225
2000 CA Ward and Buxton LJJ	Children, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The mother had been given leave by the Recorder to remove a ten month old girl permanently from the jurisdiction to the United States in circumstances where the mother`s job prospects were better in New York than in England. The father, (in person) raised the question of a breach of his right under Article 8(1). The Court considered the effect of Article 8 but saw no reason to interfere with the established line of authority followed by the judge and which bound the Court. Held. Leave was refused. Buxton LJ doubted whether the difficult balancing exercise performed by the judge came within the purview of the Convention at all.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8 - Human Rights Act 1998 - Children Act 1989

In Re C (leave to remove from the jurisdiction) [2000] 2 FLR 457
2000 CA Morritt, Thorpe and Chadwick LJJ	Children	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court heard an appeal from an order made on an application for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction.
	Children Act 1989

L -v- Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Havering London Borough Council [2000] 3 All ER 346
2000	Children, Litigation Practice

Ignaccolo-Zenide -v- Romania (2000) 31 EHRR 212
2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	1 Citers
	"Although coercive measures towards children are far from desirable in such sensitive matters, sanctions should not be ruled out where the parent living with the children acts unlawfully."

Re H (Abduction: Child of Sixteen) [2000] 2 FLR 51
2000 FD Bracewell J	Children	Casemap 1 Cites
	The court considered the position as to whether a child was to be deemed to be settled after having been within the UK for a period of more than one year: "It is the case, looking at the relative dates, that these proceedings were commenced after the expiration of the period of one year from the date of removal. It is, in my judgment, necessary to consider why the proceedings were so delayed. That, in my opinion, is relevant to the question of settlement because it was made plain in the case of Re L (Abduction: Pending Criminal Proceedings) [1999] 1 FLR 433, 441 that time in hiding cannot go to establish settlement and it is not good law for the abducting parent to be able to say 'well, I have managed to evade the wronged parent; I have managed to hide my address and whereabouts of the children and I am going to rely on that in advance of the argument that the children have been so long in the jurisdiction that they have now settled in that environment and the court should exercise a judgment not to return them to the original jurisdiction'. Further, in that context it is relevant to consider when the father knew of the whereabouts of the children. I am satisfied that the father first knew of the children's whereabouts in December 1998 when he received a letter from K. Even if the mother wrote in May 1998 and whether or not the father received such a letter, it does not, in my judgment, affect this aspect of the case because the mother did not set out her address and indicated that she would be staying in England for at least a few months. At that date, on any view of the matter, the mother was making representations which did not constitute a determination to remain permanently in this jurisdiction. It was in fact misleading as far as the father was concerned, because I am satisfied that when the mother wrongfully removed the children she intended to stay permanently within this jurisdiction but had no intention of so informing the father. The mother in effect was playing ducks and drakes with the father. She did not disclose her address and she did not inform the school in Australia that she was removing the children. When K did inform the father of the address shortly thereafter there was a removal to another address, and plainly, on the totality of the evidence, the mother was unwilling to have any meaningful contact with the father or to give him any information which might assist him to take any proceedings in relation to the children. Having regard to the fact, as I find, that the father did not know the whereabouts of the children until December 1998, it follows that within 12 months of that time he did in fact bring proceedings. That is a relevant matter in considering whether or not the children had settled. I find that the mother cannot, in the circumstances of this case, rely upon the settlement of the children in this jurisdiction. It is plain from the authorities what settlement consists of and, so far as these children are concerned, I do not find that they come into the ambit of the test in Re N (Minors) (Abduction) [1991] 1 FLR 413. Settlement has to be looked at at the date of commencement of proceedings and it is to be given its ordinary meaning with two constituents physical and emotional."

In Re X (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Parental Responsibility)
7 Jan 2000 FD	Children
	Even though a local authority had obtained an interim care order in an application for the child to be committed to its care, that did not prevent the unmarried mother entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the child's father. The children were subject to interim orders, and the plan was to place them for adoption. The father's signing of such an agreement was not an act exercising parental responsibility, and therefore neither could the mother's signature be, and the Act was not limited by the interim order.
	Children Act 1989 94

In Re W (A Minor) (Parental Contact: Prohibition)
20 Jan 2000 CA	Children
	Once a court has made an order granting care to the local authority, the court no longer has any jurisdiction to make an order to prohibit contact between the child and a parent. The regulations give explicit power to the authority to agree such an arrangement, and therefore any order would be unenforceable.
	Children Act 1989 34 - Contact with Children Regulations 1991 (1991 No 891)

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte A [2000] UKHL 4; [2000] 2 AC 276; [2000] 1 All ER 651; [2000] 2 WLR 293; [2000] Crim LR 321
27 Jan 2000 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Nolan Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde	Criminal Sentencing, Children
	A youth had been remanded into the care of the local authority pending his trial. He was eventually made subject to a custodial sentence and sought to have the period of remand deducted from his sentence. The period in care had not been in a secure environment but a strict regime of curfews and otherwise had applied. The court held that such a remand did not operate to restrict his liberty and the time was not to be deducted.
	Criminal Justice Act 1967 Part III
	Link[s] omitted

G -v- G [2000] EWCA Civ 509; [2000] 3 FCR 53; [2000] 2 FLR 36; [2000] Fam Law 466
1 Feb 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

In Re T and Another (Children)
1 Feb 2000 CA	Legal Professions, Children
	In the course of care proceedings, the father, lately joined to them, asserted that the solicitor acting for the guardian ad litem had previously acted for him in unrelated proceedings. The solicitor declined to withdraw, saying that he had no memory of so acting, the files relating to it were old, and had been destroyed, and that there was no risk of disclosure of any confidential material. The appeal was denied. The father had to show a real rather than a fanciful risk of the disclosure of confidential information, and he had failed to do so.

In Re H (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2000] UKHL 6; [2000] 2 WLR 337; [2000] 2 AC 291; [2000] 1 FCR 225; [2000] 2 All ER 1
3 Feb 2000 HL	Children	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	It was possible for the court itself to have sufficient rights of custody under the Convention to allow a party to apply on the basis that an abduction had interfered with those rights of custody. A father had begun proceedings but did not himself have rights awarded, but he could apply on the basis that the court had acquired those rights.
	Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 - Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Sch 1
	Link[s] omitted

Irene M Scott -v- The United Kingdom 34745/97; [2000] ECHR 698; 2000 Fam LR 102; [2000] 1 FLR 958; [2000] Fam Law 538; [2000] 2 FCR 560
8 Feb 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Admissibility) The court was asked whether the mother's Article 8 rights had been breached by a local authority who had applied to free her child for adoption, the court once again stated that 'the best interests of the child is always of crucial importance'.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

In Re O; In Re J (Minors) (Blood Tests: Constraint)
10 Feb 2000 FD	Children
	In cases where putative father sought blood tests to establish that he was the father of a child, the unmarried mother could refuse to allow the test to take place. The clear effect of the wording of the sections together was clear and could not be overridden. It may be that the wording denies the child its Human Rights under the new Act, giving allowance now for the greater recognition of the importance of the father's involvement in the child's life.
	Family Law Reform Act 1969 20 21(1)(3)

Practice Direction (Crown Court: Trial of Children and Young Persons)
17 Feb 2000 LCJ	Criminal Practice, Children
	Directions given to ensure that young persons tried in a Crown Court receive a fair trial allowing for their age and understanding. The trial procedure must not expose the child to humiliation or distress, consideration should be given to splitting off of any adult defendants, consideration should be given to the physical layout of the court, and the court's daily timetables and otherwise.

In re B (A Child) [2000] EWCA Civ 511
22 Feb 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

Re B (Sexual Abuse: Expert's Report) [2000] EWCA Civ 516; [2000] 2 FCR 8; [2000] Fam Law 479; (2000) 164 JPN 624; [2000] 1 FLR 871
22 Feb 2000 CA	Children, Litigation Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Lancashire County Council and Another -v- B and Another and One Other; Lancashire County Council v A [2000] UKHL 16; [2000] 2 AC 147; [2000] 1 FLR 583; [2000] 2 All ER 97
16 Mar 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nolan Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde	Children	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder's own child B. Held: Even though the parents could not be held responsible, the threshold conditions which would allow proceedings for a care order to be begun were established. To require proof of who had committed the abuse would make it frequently impossible for the authorities to act to protect children. The phrase 'care given to the child' did not require restriction to the care given by the parents or by a particular person. 'Different considerations from the norm apply in a case of shared caring where the care given by one or other of the carers is proved to have been deficient, with the child suffering harm in consequence, but the court is unable to identify which of the carers provided the deficient care. In such a case, the phrase "care given to the child" is apt to embrace not merely the care given by the parents or other primary carers; it is apt to embrace the care given by any of the carers.'
	Children Act 1989 31
	Link[s] omitted

Plymouth City Council -v- C and Another [2000] 1 FLR 875
21 Mar 2000 CA Thorpe LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ	Children, Local Government	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the period to be disregarded under the Act for any temporary placement. The court reaffirmed the simple test in Northamptonshire ‘should be sufficient to determine all but the most exceptional cases’. It did not give the judge some sort of discretionary exit from the plain application of the mechanism contained in sections 31 and 105’. (Swinton Thomas LJ) "It is clear, as my lord has said in his judgment, that what was intended in that passage was to leave the door open for circumstances or facts which might arise, which could properly, in the context of that decision, be regarded as exceptional. As at present, I do not find it possible myself to envisage facts which would be exceptional, although I entirely accept that it could be that such facts could arise and that it would be right for the court to leave that possibility open."
	Children Act 1989 31(1) 105(6)

In Re B (A Minor) (Sexual Abuse: Expert's Report) [2001] 1 FLR 871
29 Mar 2000 CA	Children	Casemap
	In sexual abuse case brought in the family courts it was vital that instructions to an expert to prepare a report should be impartial, and given jointly by the parties. Such instructions should not allow the expert to make any forensic contribution to any opending litigation. There must be no confusion between the roles of expert to treat and expert to report.

C and B (Children ), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 3040
30 Mar 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

T (Children), In Re [2000] EWCA Civ 133
18 Apr 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

In Re T (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights)
24 Apr 2000 CA	Children
	Where a child of eleven years, but of greater maturity, made a compelling, reasoned and clear case for not being returned to one parent after an international abduction, the court could, with great care, refuse to order her return. Where two children were involved, and an order for the younger would split the children up, a court could also make an order refusing to return that child. It was possible for the child herself to make out the defence under the Convention.
	Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

L -v- Finland [2000] ECHR 175; 25651/94; [2000] ECHR 176; [2000] 2 FLR 118; [2000] Fam Law 536; (2001) 31 EHRR 30; [2000] 3 FCR 219; 31 EHRR 30
27 Apr 2000 ECHR Mr G. Ress	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings "the consideration of what is in the best interests of the child is of crucial importance."
	Link[s] omitted

K And T -v- Finland [2000] ECHR 173; 25702/94; [2000] ECHR 174
27 Apr 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Taking a newly born child straight into care may infringe the right to family life.
	Link[s] omitted

In Re E and Others (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Social Work Practice)
10 May 2000 FD	Children
	Social workers must learn from earlier cases of failing to deal properly with abusive parenting. They should keep an up-to-date chronology of a case history which should be at the front of the file. No important decision should be made without a full knowledge of the file and consultation with other professionals involved, including health visitors. A decision by a family not to co-operate could not be taken as a reason to close a file.

In Re J (Minor) (Isle of Man: Adoption)
7 Jun 2000 FD	Adoption, Children, International
	Because the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom under the Act, proceedings for an adoption of a child from the Isle of Man were an inter-country adoption, and so had to be commenced in the High Court. There was, however, nothing to prevent the High Court transferring the case to the County Court in appropriate situations. The need arose even though the Act envisaged a child subject to a freeing order being placed with a Manx couple with a view to adoption.
	Adoption Act 1976 56

G (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 503; [2001] 1 FCR 97
20 Jun 2000 CA	Children	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

In Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re V (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re M (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In re L, V, M and H (Children) [2000] Fam 260; [2000] Fam Law 615; [2000] EWCA Civ 194; [2000] 4 All ER 609; [2000] 2 FCR 404; [2000] Fam Law 603; [2001] 2 WLR 339; [2000] 2 FLR 334
21 Jun 2000 CA Butler-Sloss LJ, Thorpe LJ, Waller LJ	Family, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	When considering contact applications after domestic violence, the approach should be child centred, and according to the criteria in the Act. The circumstances of the violence should be looked into, and the potentially damaging effect of contact with a violent parent should not be underestimated. The parent's possible contribution to the child and facing up to the reality of what had happened should be allowed for. Still domestic violence was not an absolute bar to contact. The term 'parental alienation' is unhelpful, and is better thought of as outright hostility.
	Children Act 1989
	Link[s] omitted

In Re F (Minors) (Care Proceedings): Contact)
22 Jun 2000 FD	Children, Local Government, Human Rights
	The powers given to local authorities over children in care and the arrangements for contact are compliant with the human rights act. The balancing act between the child's best interests and those of the mother had been correctly applied.

Nuutinen -v- Finland 32842/96; (2000) 34 EHRR 358; [2000] ECHR 354; [2000] ECHR 355
27 Jun 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) [2000] 3 FCR 721
18 Jul 2000 CA	Children, Local Government	Casemap 1 Citers
	A guardian ad litem, representing one child, was entitled to see a report, prepared by the child protection committee of the local authority, which related to the death of the child's sibling. Such a report constituted a report prepared by the authority whilst exercising a statutory function assigned to it. No question of policy could limit the obligation to disclose such a report. The child had an overwhelming interest on the report. Questions about the disclosure of particularly sensitive material were issues of practice not principle. Section 42 should be given its literal meaning.
	Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 - Children Act 1989 42(1)(b)

In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Teenage Mother)
19 Jul 2000 FD	Children, Adoption
	There is no general rule that the baby of a young teenage mother should be adopted. Nevertheless it would not be right to concentrate on the interests of the mother as a child. The unborn child must be given equal consideration, and a twin-track approach to planning must be used. Where appropriate suitable adopters could be identified before the child's birth, although this must not pre-empt the decision of the court. An interim placement of the child should be determined on evidence as a matter of urgency after the child's birth.

Dorney-Kingdom -v- Dorney-Kingdom
25 Jul 2000 CA	Children, Family, Child Support
	A court may not make an original order for child maintenance, save by consent. The practice of disguising such an order, as part of spousal maintenance, pending a determination by the Child Support Agency, was only legitimate where there was included a real element of spousal maintenance. Simply calling child maintenance spousal maintenance is not correct or legitimate.
	Child Support Act 1991 8(5)

Kelly (A Minor) -v- British Broadcasting Corporation [2000] EWHC Fam 2; [2000] EWHC 3 (Fam); [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2000] 3 FCR 509; [2000] Fam Law 886; [2001] 2 WLR 253; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197; FD/00P10636
25 Jul 2000 FD Munby J	Children, Media, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites
	K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well and did not wish to return. The BBC said that they wished to approach the sect to interview him. Held: The exparte injunction was discontinued. The court pointed out the facilities available to K for assistance if required. The court had granted an interim injunction to restrain publiction of any report by the BBC. The publication of information about a ward, even if the child is known to be a ward, is not, of itself and without more ado, a contempt of court. As to section 12 of the 1960 Act: "what section 12 protects is the privacy and confidentiality: (i) of the documents on the court file and (ii) of what has gone on in front of the judge in his courtroom . . In contrast, section 12 does not operate to prevent publication of the fact that wardships proceedings are on foot, nor does it prevent identification of the parties or even of the ward himself. It does not prevent reporting of the comings and goings of the parties and witnesses, nor of incidents taking place outside the court or indeed within the precincts of the court but outside the room in which the judge is conducting the proceedings. Nor does section 12 prevent public identification and at least some discussion of the issues in the wardship proceedings." Though the court had jurisdiction to make an order, the interviewing of a ward of court, if it stayed clear of the relevant legislation, was not something requiring the prior leave of the court. A 'major incident' of a child's life requiring an order would be leaving of home, not the giving of an interview, and nor would such an interview be part of his 'upbringing'.
	European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 12 - Contempt of Court Act 1981 2 19 - Children Act 1989 97(2)
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Gogay -v- Hertfordshire County Council [2000] EWCA Civ 228; [2000] IRLR 703; (2001) 3 LGLR 14; [2000] Fam Law 883; [2001] 1 FCR 455; [2001] 1 FLR 280
26 Jul 2000 CA Hale LJ	Employment, Personal Injury, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	It should not be automatic that a care worker in a children's home being investigated for allegations of child abuse must be suspended. Such a suspension involved different issues to those in the enquiry itself. Characterisation of the enquiries under section 47 had not helped in this case. The 'knee jerk' reaction of suspension in this case amounted to a breach of the employer's duty of trust and confidence toward the employee. Such a suspension which led to damages could be compensated in damages, although the law was in need of clarification. The duty in this case was in contract, rather than in tort, but there is more reason to distinguish between physical and psychiatric injury in this case than in other breaches of an employer’s duties: "There is all the difference in the world between hurt, upset and injury to feelings, for which in general the law does not provide compensation whether in contract or (with certain well-defined exceptions) in tort, and a recognised psychiatric illness."
	Children Act 1989 47
	Link[s] omitted

H (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 3011
31 Jul 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

British Broadcasting Corporation -v- Kelly [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197
9 Aug 2000 FD Munby J	Children, Media, Contempt of Court	Casemap 1 Citers
	The interview for television of a child ward of court who had gone to live with members of a religious sect was not necessarily a contempt of court. There are three groups of ways in which a ward's interests can be protected. First where the wardship would lead to no special action, and the ward would take action himself, where the jurisdiction was exercisable, but after a balancing exercise in which the child's interests were not paramount, and where a major decision was to be made in which case the jurisdiction was exercisable. Provided the media kept within such rules as did apply, they should not need to apply to the court, and nor would they be in contempt. "in relation to the media the exercise of the court's inherent parens patriae or wardship jurisdiction is divided into three parts: the first part, in which the jurisdiction is not exercisable at all and the child is left to whatever remedies against the media the law would give an adult in comparable circumstances; a second part in which the jurisdiction is exercisable, but in circumstances where, because the court is exercising only its "protective" jurisdiction, the child's interests are not paramount and where a so-called balancing exercise has to be performed; and the third part, in which, because the court is exercising its "custodial" jurisdiction, the child's interests are paramount. Well known examples of cases falling into the first category, where no injunction can be granted, are In re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1975] Fam 47; R v Central Television plc [1994] Fam 192 and M v British Broadcasting Corpn [1997] 1 FLR 51."

A (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 404
12 Sep 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

Glaser -v- The United Kingdom 32346/96; (2001) 33 EHRR I; [2001] 1 FLR 153; [2000] ECHR 418; [2000] ECHR 419
19 Sep 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	"The essential object of Article 8 is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities. There may however be positive obligations inherent in an effective "respect" for family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for family life even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals' rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific steps. In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the state's margin of appreciation." Speed was essential in determining disputes about children.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Legal Aid Board, Ex Parte W and Others (Minors)
19 Sep 2000 CA	Children, Legal Aid
	When considering the granting of legal aid for a solicitor to be appointed to represent a child's guardian ad litem in proceedings under section 34, the Board had failed to acknowledge the requirement under the Rules placed upon a guardian to be represented. There was no choice about the appointment. The power to reject an application could only be exercised where it was considered unreasonable to grant legal aid. The failure to consider the obligation was a fundamental flaw in the decision, which was vitiated.
	Children Act 1989 34 - Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991/1247) 4.11 4.12 - Legal Aid Act 1974

H (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 403
26 Sep 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

S (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 413
27 Sep 2000 CA	Children
	Residence
	Link[s] omitted

W Borough Council -v- D, K -v- D J, K -v- A, K (a Minor) -v- David Delahunty (Guardian Ad Litem) [2000] EWCA Civ 255
29 Sep 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

S (Child) -v- London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [2000] EWCA Civ 410
2 Oct 2000 CA	Children
	Contact with child in care
	Link[s] omitted

E (a Child), In the Matter of [2000] NIEHC 42
6 Oct 2000 NIHC	Northern Ireland, Children
	Link[s] omitted

In Re D (Child: Threshold Criteria)
13 Oct 2000 CA	Children
	There had been an arrangement for a split hearing of an application for a care order. At the first hearing a statement had been agreed as to the terms upon which the threshold criteria had been met. However the expert could not base his decision upon that agreed statement, and the authority applied to re-open the issue of the extent and manner in which the threshold criteria had been met. The mother resisted, but the court, it was held, was correct to allow the issue to be re-opened despite the fact that no new facts had emerged and the agreement. It was necessary to promote the welfare of the child.
	Children Act 1989 31

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council -v- Holmes and Others
20 Oct 2000 FD	Children, Human Rights, Media
	A newspaper sought to investigate the policies adopted by the council as regards inter-racial fostering. The council relied upon the Act to justify restrictions it sought to be imposed on the reporting. The case was not affected by the Children Act, and therefore no balancing exercise was required. The policy restricting publication was to be looked at under the convention, and limited only to the extent required. The injunction would be relaxed to permit publication provided the case was appropriately anonymised, and social workers with no opportunity to answer criticism were not named.
	Children Act 1989 1(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 12

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Lally
26 Oct 2000 QBD	Children, Human Rights, Family
	Tight restrictions had been placed on the circumstances under which children might visit prisoners in high security hospitals who were seen to be a risk to them having been convicted of murder or similar or who were schedule 1 offenders. The restrictions were valid, since they always allowed visits where a court had ordered contact, and there was no clear line to be drawn between different classes of convicted murderers. Contact was to be assessed in accordance with the child's best interests, and breaks in contact with remoter family members such as nephews and nieces, need not be considered interference with family life.
	European Convention on Human Rights

In Re S (A Child) (Ex Parte Orders)
2 Nov 2000 CA	Children, Family
	The court set out the basic rules to be followed when applying for ex parte orders in children and ancillary relief cases. Recognising the wide variety of situations which might arise, and the need to retain flexibility, it also recognised the need to act quickly particularly to protect children. Those making an application were under a duty to make the fullest and frankest disclosure of all relevant circumstances. This was not limited to material facts, but included for example any relevant law. Any material put before the court should be on the basis that it might later be placed before any other party, and the applicant had a duty to disclose all such material to that party to allow them to prepare for the return hearing. Undertakings must be strictly adhered to. Representatives would be wise to keep notes of the content of the hearing.

A (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 401
3 Nov 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

In Re D -v- D (Children) (Shared Residence Orders) [2000] EWCA Civ 3009; [2001] 1 FLR 495; [2001] 1 FCR 147; [2001] Fam Law 183
20 Nov 2000 CA Hale LJ, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P	Children	1 Citers
	Three children after their parents' separation, spent substantial amounts of time with each, despite the acrimony between their parents and frequent court applications. The father argued that without a shared residence order he was treated as a second-class parent by authorities with whom he had to deal over matters relating to the children. The judge made a shared residence order, and the mother appealed. Held. Earlier decisions restricting the circumstances where shared residence orders should be made may be incorrect. In this case, the children had continuing staying contact with their father. There remained many and repeated points of dispute about administering the contact, but it was clear that the mother accepted in principle that the children would be staying with their father for some of the time. In such circumstances, shared residence might well be in the interests of the children. It was not necessary to establish exceptional circumstances, or any positive benefit for the child provided it could be shown to be in the children's best interests.
	Children Act 1989 8(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mario Montana [2000] EWHC Admin 421
23 Nov 2000 Admn	Administrative, Human Rights, Discrimination, Children
	The distinction made in British nationality law, between the relationships of mother and child, and that of father and child, when the parents were not married, was not a breach of the human right to a family life. The claimant suggested that the rule was discriminatory both as sex discrimination, and as discrimination against the child as illegitimate. In this case the refusal of British citizenship had not in fact interfered with the child's family relationships, and there was no previous case in which such a distinction had been found. The cases for citizenship under the two sections were quite different, and were not proper comparators.
	British Nationality Act 1981 2 3
	[ Bailii ]

R (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 406
27 Nov 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted

G (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 504; [2001] 1 FLR 872
29 Nov 2000 CA	Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

In Re K (A Child) (Secure Accommodation Order: Right to Liberty) [2001] 1 FLR 526
29 Nov 2000 CA	Education, Children, Human Rights
	An order providing that a child should stay in secure accommodation, was an order which restricted the child's liberty. A justification for such a restriction had to be brought within the exceptions listed in the article. Detention for educational supervision was permitted, and such supervision was not restricted to education in the sense of tuition in a school setting, but could be extended to include education in the more general sense of the exercise of parental rights by an authority in whose care the child was. Such an order did not therefore conflict with the child's article 5 right.
	European Convention on Human Rights A5 - Children Act 1989 25 - Children Secure Accomodation Regulations 1991 (1991 No 1505)

Regina -v- Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham ex parte Makila Ebuki and Brandon Ebuki (By His Mother and Litigation Friend Makila Ebuki) [2000] EWHC Admin 426
5 Dec 2000 Admn Jack Beatson Q.C.	Children	Casemap 1 Cites
	The applicants sought judicial review of the Council's decision to evict her and her children from emergency accommodation for the homeless without further provision, saying the council failed its duty to her child under section 17. Held: The council had conducted a review as required. However it was defective, and the council had been ineffective in dealing with the application, and failed properly to communicate its result, and the review was quashed, with an accompanying responsibility on the council to renew the assessment.
	Children Act 1989 17
	Link[s] omitted

D (A Child), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 402
14 Dec 2000 CA	Children
	Residence
	Link[s] omitted

TB -v- JB (Formerly J H) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2000] EWCA Civ 337; [2001] 2 FLR 515; [2001] 2 FCR 497; [2001] Fam Law 576
19 Dec 2000 CA Laws, Hale, Arden LJJ	Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	The father appealed against rejection of his claim for the return of his three children to New Zealand.
	Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
	Link[s] omitted

B (a Child) (By Her Guardian Ad Litem, the Official Solicitor) -v- Regina, P W County Council -v- SB [2000] EWCA Civ 341
20 Dec 2000 CA	Children
	Link[s] omitted