Children in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Supreme Court
    • 01 Feb 2011

    This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all other considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other. It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other competing factors. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them.

  • White v White
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Oct 2000

    In seeking to achieve a fair outcome, there is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles. Traditionally, the husband earned the money, and the wife looked after the home and the children. If, in their different spheres, each contributed equally to the family, then in principle it matters not which of them earned the money and built up the assets. There should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the home-maker and the child-carer.

  • HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 Jun 2012,20 Jun 2012

    (7) Hence it is likely that the public interest in extradition will outweigh the article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe.

    In the first place, as Neulinger and ZH (Tanzania) have explained, article 8 has to be interpreted in such a way that their best interests are a primary consideration, although not always the only primary consideration and not necessarily the paramount consideration.

    When resistance to extradition is advanced, as in effect it is in each of these appeals, on the basis of the article 8 entitlements of dependent children and the interests of society in their welfare, it should only be in very rare cases that extradition may properly be avoided if, given the same broadly similar facts, and after making proportionate allowance as we do for the interests of dependent children, the sentencing courts here would nevertheless be likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence: any other approach would be inconsistent with the principles of international comity.

  • EV (Philippines) and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal
    • 26 Jun 2014

    In my judgment, therefore, the assessment of the best interests of the children must be made on the basis that the facts are as they are in the real world. If neither parent has the right to remain, then that is the background against which the assessment is conducted. Thus the ultimate question will be: is it reasonable to expect the child to follow the parent with no right to remain to the country of origin?

  • Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abu-Qulbain v Same; Kashmiri v Same
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Mar 2007

    In an article 8 case where this question is reached, the ultimate question for the appellate immigration authority is whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain, in circumstances where the life of the family cannot reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by article 8.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results