Search for: "In re B. Children"
Results 1 - 20
of 3,451
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2009, 2:34 am
In re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17; [2009] WLR (D) 365 "The test to be applied to the identification of a potential perpetrator, out of a pool of two or more potential perpetrators, who might have caused harm to a child was the balance of probabilities and that standard of proof [...] [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 1:57 am
In re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) Supreme Court “When considering who caused injury to a child out of a pool of two or more potential perpetrators, the standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and that standard did not vary according the gravity of the injuries or conduct alleged. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 2:24 am
In re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5; [2009] WLR (D) 336 "When the court was considering a residence order application in respect of a child under s 8 of the Children Act 1989 there was no presumption in favour of a biological parent. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 2:04 am
In re B (Minors) (Contact Order: Enforcement); [2009] WLR (D) 73 “A contact order made under s 34 of the Children Act 1989 in the county court was enforceable by committal for contempt of court, and the court had jurisdiction to attach to a penal notice directed to the local authority in whose care the relevant [...] [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 2:08 pm
B. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 6:27 am
Re S (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 454 concerned the unusual circumstance of a father obtaining leave to remove two children from the jurisdiction, but the mother only appealing in respect of the younger child.Facts: The father is Canadian and the mother English by birth. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 4:32 pm
In the case of A and B (Children) [2018] EWHC 3491 (Fam) the recently retired President of the Family Division Sir James Munby had to deal with an application for reporting restriction orders arising from care proceedings, and a cross application by a journalist for orders permitting disclosure of the majority of the case papers and subsequently permission to report on it. [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 6:08 am
The trustees managing seven trusts executed by Martin B. in 1969, filed request that the Surrogate’s Court, New York County provide direction on distribution of trust assets to post-conceived children of Martin B. [read post]
27 May 2011, 2:54 am
This week the Supreme Court has been hearing an appeal from the Court of Appeal in Re E (Children.) [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 9:22 am
How does Re B impact on things? [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 7:48 am
The case of B v B [2012] EWHC 1924 (Fam), decided today, contains another judicial warning upon the preparation of court bundles. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 1:33 am
"The mother appealed against this determination of the judge.Held: After reviewing Re M (Abduction: Zimbabwe) [2007] UKHL 55, the leading authority on the exercise of the discretion to order the return of children who have become settled, Lady Justice Black found (at paragraph 26): "that the judge both failed to state the Re M principles and failed to apply them. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 3:47 pm
Sometimes, this means an H1-B visa holder and an H-4 visa holder will need to file for divorce while they’re in the United States. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 10:26 am
Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 concerned a three year-old boy who had been cared for since birth by his maternal grandmother, who was granted a residence order by consent in November 2006. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 2:18 pm
The Lords have given quite an interesting judgment today on the standard of proof in care proceedings under the Children Act 1989, which I think in principle applies across the board in civil proceedings. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 12:28 pm
That opposition brief should reveal both (a) whether they intend to re-litigate the determination of death, and (b) why they think that is warranted. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 6:29 am
In re Martin B., 841 N.Y.S.2d 207 (Sur. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 2:04 am
Where the protective measures are sufficient (as in Re E they were found to be), the Article 13(b) defence will fail. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 3:53 pm
Children need to be fed, clothed and cared for when they’re babies. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 12:29 pm
It alleged: Jonathan hit and choked mother in the children's presence, and such violent conduct in the children's presence endangered their health and safety and placed them at risk of physical harm (a-1, b-2); mother and Jonathan allowed the children access to a loaded firearm and refused to comply with law enforcement requests to exit the home (b-1); the family home was in a filthy and unsanitary condition, endangering the children‟s… [read post]
