The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
CARE PROCEEDINGS: Islington London Borough Council v EV  EWHC 3240 (Fam)
Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jan 24, 2011, 08:21 AM
Article ID :93395
(Family Division; Eleanor King J; 9 December 2010)
The mother who had mental health problems and father, a Turkish national living in Turkey, were divorced. The child was living with its maternal grandmother and adult half-brother. The local authority care plan proposed that the child to return to his father's care in Turkey under a residence order. The Official Solicitor, for the mother, argued that the appropriate jurisdictional route was to impose an interim care order with permission to place the child outside the jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 Schedule 2 para 19.
Held that where a child was to be placed abroad with his father pending a final hearing in care proceedings, the jurisdictionally correct order was one under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 rather than a wardship and interim residence order. The interim care order should remain in place so that the local authority could exercise its parental authority should it need to, as this was in the best interests of the child.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.