Family Law Newsletter #1306.09.18
Articles from around the web, Legislation updates and Case Updates from Care Proceedings and Financial Remedy matters. Subscribe to receive Family Law Newsletter notifications or email us to give us any feedback.
It’s been a busy summer in the courts with issues including no-fault divorce reaching the headlines. Here’s our top news items and cases to help you start the new term fully informed….
Islamic marriage recognized as “void marriage rather than non-marriage” leaving application for financial remedies open to wifeRead More
Womens’ Aid highlight difficulties faced by victims of domestic abuse within the family court systemRead More
Recent guidance from the President of the Family Division:
Five years after former family division president Sir James Munby highlighted a pressing need for greater transparency in the family justice system, the government and judiciary are to allow certain ‘legal bloggers’ to report on proceedings.
Recent case updates and summaries:
Owens v Owens  UKSC 41
Supreme Court decision in “unreasonable behaviour” petition for divorce. Her principal ground of appeal had been that the subsection should now be interpreted as requiring not that the behaviour of Mr Owens had been such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him but that the effect of it on her had been of that character. By the time of the hearing, that ground was no longer pursued. The court, for the first time, considers the meaning of “behaviour which means that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent” and examines whether the use of the legal shorthand “unreasonable behaviour” leads to the wrong test being applied.
The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment concerning issue of whether regime applied to 14 year old child deprives her of her liberty in such a way as to engage her Article 5 ECHR rights.
RD was resident in a therapeutic residential home and the levels of supervision and monitoring afforded to her were not generally different from other residents. RD was not competent to consent to a deprivation and was subject to an ICO.
The court described the decision as finely balanced and found that the regime did not impose complete control or supervision, but did impose limits and boundaries, which were restrictions comparable to any other child her age.
Re A-F No 2
Munby J’s guidance, including draft orders attached to the judgment, in cases involving the deprivation of liberty of teenagers, and consideration of transfer to the Court of Protection.
Williams and another v London Borough of Hackney  UKSC 37
Court of Appeal: Lady Hale, President; Lord Kerr; Lord Wilson; Lord Carnwath; Lady Black
The focus of this appeal was on the limits of local authority powers and duties to provide accommodation of children under s.20 of the Children Act 1989 and specifically what local authorities are to do if parents seek the return of their accommodated children but a local authority perceive there are obstacles in doing so…continue reading