header-logo header-logo

Children & young persons

29 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Re C (Children) (Care: Change of forename) [2016] EWCA Civ 374, [2016] All ER (D) 113 (Apr)

The Court of Appeal dismissed a mother’s appeal against an order of the court that prevented her from naming her two children (who had been taken into care) “Cyanide” and “Preacher”. The naming of a child was an act of parental responsibility, the extent of which could be determined by a local authority. There was no restriction in the Children Act 1989 preventing an authority from overruling a parent in relation to a forename, but that was subject to a parent’s rights under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge had erred in finding that the authority could determine the mother’s choice of name pursuant to s 33(3)(b) of the 1989 Act, where the proper route was for the matter to be put before the High Court by way of an application to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under s 100 of that Act.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll