Philcox Gray represented a mother in her successful application for permission to appeal a care and a placement order made at Newcastle County Court in February 2015 in respect of her son.

It was submitted on behalf of the mother that the judge failed to adopt the approach required in cases concerning placement orders by failing to follow the guidance of the recent case of Re B-S (children) in that the court failed to consider the effect on the child of removal from his mother’s care and did not set out the basis on which it was considered the mother’s future care would be likely to cause significant harm to the child.  The court therefore did not take the proper holistic approach when considering all placement options for the child nor did it properly balance the options of rehabilitation and adoption.

McFarlane LJ granted permission to appeal, noting the proposed appeal enjoyed “a real prospect of success.”

The Local Authority and Children’s Guardian recognised the arguments put forward on behalf of the mother and Lord MacFarlane’s provisional view of the merits of the appeal, they therefore offered no resistance to the appeal and a rehearing was ordered.

Throughout the appeal process the mother was represented by Philcox Gray who instructed Deirdre Fottrell QC of 1GC Chambers.

If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Natasha Slabas, Solicitor at Philcox Gray, has recently written an interesting article on the need for reform in Surrogacy Law. To read the full article click here:

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/family/the-pitfalls-of-surrogacy-arrangements/

Darren Francis represented a husband in divorce and related financial matters upon the breakdown of his marriage. The main assets of the marriage included the former matrimonial home in the UK and property in the West Indies, the latter of which the husband argued he owned in his sole name due to inheriting the property some 30 years prior to the marriage. Proceedings were particularly fractious, with the wife asserting that the property in the West Indies was used as a family holiday home during the marriage and therefore was a matrimonial asset. At the final hearing, the Court found in the husband’s favour and deemed that the property in the West Indies was indeed a non-matrimonial asset and the wife had no legal or equitable interest in it. The Court ordered immediate sale of the former matrimonial home and the proceeds split so as to rehouse the parties.

The matter was further complicated by the wife’s continued refusal to vacate the former matrimonial home to effect sale. The wife was informed of the husband’s intention to issue enforcement proceedings under rule 9.24 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, to request the Court to order that she give up possession of the property so that the sale may proceed. In light of this, the wife decided to comply with the original Final Order and the sale is now proceeding, much to the husband’s relief.

If you need help or advice with divorce and associated financial matters, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Re A v B [2015] EWHC 1562 (Fam)

Philcox Gray represented a father of a child on a successful Defence of an application under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 or Article 11 of Counsel Regulation (EC) 2201/2003.

Pauffley LJ gave guidance on what she had described as “an extraordinary dispute”. The mother is a West African national, living in Germany, the father an English national living in London with his wife who is a West African national. Due to significant medical difficulties, the father and wife were unable to conceive a child of their own. The child was conceived in February 2013. The arrangements for this and where the child would live after birth, having lived for four months in Germany, together with the identity of the main carer for the four months following birth, were fiercely contested.

Both parents had rights of custody, the mother under the German Civil Code; the father as a result of the child’s registration of birth in November 2013. The facts between the parties were significantly disputed. The mother’s case was that she would naturally conceive a child with a father who he would see regularly. The father’s case was that there had been an agreement that the child would live with him and his wife in England, seeing the mother during holidays.

Pauffley LJ considered the principles set out by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court in A v A & Another (Children: Habitual Residence) [2013] UKSC 60 and in Mercredi v. Chaffe (Case C-497/10) [2012] Fam 22.

Pauffley LJ determined that the wife did not relinquish her habitual residence when staying in Germany for 4 months to care for the child after birth because habitual residence may exist in a State which is the home of the family unit of which the infant is part, and where he would be but for force majeure.”

The integration was therefore ruled as being with the father and his wife and the intervention of the Convention for swift return could not be applied.

To read the full judgment click here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/1562.html

An interesting article regarding the case can be found on the The Times Online website (subscription required to read in full): http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article4467869.ece and also on the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3120189/Husband-got-wife-s-approval-child-African-woman-usual-way-2-000-wins-right-bring-boy-UK.html

At the hearing, the father was represented by Andrew Norton and Marlene Cayoun of 1 Garden Court, instructed by Natasha Slabas, Solicitor at Philcox Gray.

If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Philcox Gray represented a father of a young child on a successful appeal against a Care Order and Placement Order for adoption.

McFarlane LJ gave guidance on the correct approach to be taken to the threshold criteria by local authorities. Aikens’ LJ view was that this case exhibited many of the shortcomings highlighted by the President of the Family Division in the recent case of Re A (a child) [2015] EWFC 11. Aikens LJ provided a clear summary of the fundamental principles underpinning care cases and in particular adoption cases, including:

• In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is ordered, to demonstrate that “nothing else will do”, when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare;
• If the local authority’s case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove;
• In attempting to establish that the threshold criteria have been met, the distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised;
• The local authority must prove that there is the necessary link between the facts upon which it relies and its case on Threshold;
• The State must not remove children from their parents’ care simply because facts are established of the parents ‘failings’, be it criminality, alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness or disability. The local authority must demonstrate, in the first instance, that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm by reason of one or more of those facts.

The case will now be re-heard.

To read the full judgment click here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/222.html

An interesting article regarding the case can be found on the Family Law Week website: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed144503   

At the hearing, the father was represented by Daisy Hughes of 1 Garden Court, instructed by Sheila Donn, Partner at Philcox Gray. Sheila Donn was assisted by Darren Francis and Poppy Bourke.

If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

Isabelle Le Gentil represented a young mother within care proceedings.  The mother, who was herself a minor, and her baby had been placed in two mother and baby foster placements pre-proceedings. The placements broke down due to a number of reasons.  The mother had asked the local authority to be moved from the placement.  Mother had explained to the local authority the reasons why the previous foster placements had broken down but the local authority did not seem to accept her reasons and decided to issue care proceedings. The local authority however agreed to move the mother and her baby to another mother and baby foster placement.

The local authority did not issue care proceedings until two months after the mother and her baby moved to the new mother and baby foster placement.   By then it was clear that mother had engaged very well in the current mother and baby foster placement and both mother and baby were settled there.  Mother was happy to remain at the mother and baby foster placement.  The local authority were seeking additional assessments of mother; these were however opposed by both the mother and the children’s guardian.  In light of this, the local authority decided to withdraw their application for a Care Order.

If you need help or advice within a family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.

A man has succeeded in his claim that Southwark Council acted unfairly, negligently and unlawfully by conspiring to evict him and covering it up with a series of lies after his eviction. All of his belongings were removed and destroyed, and he ended up being street homeless for over a year.

The man was a tenant in Peckham for 23 years and had been in rent arrears. The Council had obtained a Possession Order in 2006 and wanted to enforce this by obtaining a bailiff’s Warrant. Because the Order was over six years old, the Council should have applied for permission from a Judge to evict the tenant. However, this was not done and the Court office simply issued a Warrant for the tenant’s eviction.

The Court concluded that the Council had failed to follow its own procedures relating to evictions and storing and disposing of belongings. Officers in the Council had decided to evict the tenant at all costs, whether lawfully or not, and they knew, or ignored the fact that all of the tenant’s belongings were going to be destroyed.

This was an extraordinary case with unusual circumstances. If your landlord has applied for a Warrant to evict you, you may be able to apply to Court to stop or delay the eviction and it is not late to take action. There are certain things that your landlord must do in order to lawfully evict you, especially if your landlord is a local authority or housing association.  Please contact us to see if we can assist you.