*/
European Union – Jurisdiction. The parties had agreed that the court should, in response to a request, make a transfer to the Lithuanian Central Authority in respect of a girl pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility). The court then made an interim child arrangement order in preparation for the child's return. However, the Lithuanian Central Authority then communicated that it no longer sought such a request as it considered that the English court had resolved the issue of guardianship. The parties no longer sought a transfer. The Family Court determined that, in the circumstances, a final child arrangement order would be made in favour of family members of the child that would facilitate her return to Lithuania, but that no transfer request would be made, the Lithuanian courts being best placed to deal with the child's future long term issues once her habitual residence there was established.
European Union – Jurisdiction. The parties had agreed that the court should, in response to a request, make a transfer to the Lithuanian Central Authority in respect of a girl pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility). The court then made an interim child arrangement order in preparation for the child's return. However, the Lithuanian Central Authority then communicated that it no longer sought such a request as it considered that the English court had resolved the issue of guardianship. The parties no longer sought a transfer. The Family Court determined that, in the circumstances, a final child arrangement order would be made in favour of family members of the child that would facilitate her return to Lithuania, but that no transfer request would be made, the Lithuanian courts being best placed to deal with the child's future long term issues once her habitual residence there was established.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
