*/
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.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
