Generally, sharing information with a non-party about a private law children case risks the party who has done so being found to be in contempt of court. Where a party does need to disclose information such as a court order to a third party for some reason, the court can specifically provide permission so that it is clear that it would not be contempt. There are, however, some scenarios in which information may be provided to a third party when permission is not specifically

Magistrates have had jurisdiction to hear certain types of family cases sitting as the Family Procedure Court and subsequently as part of the Family Court. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 27.2 provides that in respect of proceedings in the Family Court before a lay justice or justices, the court must give written reasons for its decision. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 27.5 provides that before the court makes an order or refuses an application or request, the justices’ clerk must make a note of the names of the justices constituting the court and of the reasons for the court’s decision. Those reasons must be recorded in writing. FPR 2010, SI

Section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) provides that if the court makes an occupation order, and it appears to the court that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the applicant or relevant child, the court shall attach a power of arrest to one or more provisions of the order unless the court is satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that there is adequate protection without such a power of arrest. A power of arrest means that a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom they have reasonable cause for suspecting to be in breach of any provision to which that power of

Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) enables a court to make a child arrangements order, namely an order that regulates the arrangements relating to: • with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact, and • when a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact with any person If a child arrangements order is in place that specifies a particular day when the child is to spend time with the non-resident parent, then that arrangement can only be varied either by agreement or, absent agreement, by a further order of the court. If a child arrangements order is in place that is less specific

The general statutory framework surrounding the confidentiality of court documents in children's proceedings can largely be outlined as follows: Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989)— '(2) No person shall publish [to the public at large or any section of the public] any material which is intended, or likely, to identify— (a) any child as being involved in any proceedings before [the High Court] [or the Family Court] in which any power under this Act [or the Adoption and Children Act 2002] may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or (b) an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings' Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 27.10(1): 'Proceedings to which these rules apply will be held

Both the UK and the Republic of Ireland are signatories to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, commonly referred to as Brussels II bis. As well as establishing common rules in respect of jurisdiction, Brussels II bis makes provision for the recognition and enforcement in one Member State of judgments that have been made in another Member State. By Article 47 of the Brussels II bis, the enforcement procedure is governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement, which is the Member State in which the child is habitually resident (in this scenario, the Republic of Ireland). Article 41 of Brussels II bis allows for a child arrangements

A child arrangements order is defined in section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) as an order regulating arrangements relating to with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact, and when that should take place. Such applications are necessary where the separated parents of children are unable to agree the arrangements for their children and the court has the power to determine whether the children live with one or the other or both of the parents and the time that they spend with each parent. It is commonly the case that the parties will reach an agreement with the encouragement of the court after proceedings have been issued, which will

There is scope for the court to make an order for an outright transfer of property, or for a settlement that lasts beyond a child’s minority, under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). However, such an order is very unusual and is only justified by limited circumstances relating to the ongoing need of the child. Williams J made the following observation in respect of orders under ChA 1989, Sch 1 in DN v UD (Sch 1 Children Act: Capital Provision) (at para [85]): ‘The net effect of all of the authorities is clear. Absent special or exceptional circumstances capital orders which provide a benefit beyond minority or the cessation of tertiary education should not be made. It is equally clear that what can amount to special

There are three orders which potentially may be used to regulate internal relocation: • a condition imposed on a child arrangements order (CAO) pursuant to section 11(7) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) • a specific issue order, and • a prohibited steps order Where internal relocation is implicit in cross-applications for provision in a CAO to regulate the living arrangements of a child, no order other than a CAO may be necessary to effectively determine and regulate the issue of internal relocation. If there is a CAO making provision for a child to live with different persons at different times, it may be appropriate to regulate internal relocation simply with an adjustment of the periods of when a child is to live with each person under the CAO. ChA 1989, s 8(1) sets out the orders

Withdrawal of applications Where an applicant has submitted an application for leave to remain, if they travel outside the Common Travel Area before they have received a decision on the application, their application will be treated as withdrawn (see Immigration Rules, Part 1, para 34K). This is confirmed in the ‘Validation, variation and withdrawal of applications’ guidance, version 4.0, published on 15 October 2021 (Validation, variation and withdrawal of applications): If a person travels outside the common travel area (CTA) before a decision is made on their application for leave to remain, you must treat the application as withdrawn

Please note that we have assumed the child’s parents have acquired British citizenship (and not another form of British nationality) and that the proposed registration application would be for British citizenship (and not another form of British nationality). The current provisions for registration

This query raises two issues: • who are the child’s parents? • who has parental responsibility for the child? It is essential to define who a child’s legal parents are in order to be able to answer any question regarding parental responsibility deriving from marriage, civil partnership, or being named on a child’s birth certificate. This is because sections 2, 4 and 4ZA of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) all set out where parental responsibilities lie and/or how they can be acquired, ie: • in circumstances where the mother and father were married at the child’s birth • in circumstances