There have been some important developments in this area since the last update (see [1993] Gazette, 2 June, 25).-- ChildrenChildren's welfare - contact orders Birmingham CC v H (A Minor) [1993] The Times, 17 December; s.34(4) of the Children Act 1989.The local authority applied under s.34(4) of the CA 1989 to terminate contact between a baby in care and his 16-year-old mother.

It was unnecessary to carry out a balancing exercise between the welfare of the child and the welfare of his mother.

S.34 related only to the child in care in respect of whom the order was sought.

It was that child's welfare which was paramount and not that of his mother.

Lord Keith added that in similar cases in the future it would be useful to consider joint representation with a view to reducing the burden on public funds.Care orders - contactRe S (A Minor) [1994] Independent, 10 January; CA 1989.

Judges, when making care orders, have no jurisdiction to order that the issue of parental contact be listed for further directions.

The local authority plans to rehabilitate the child depended upon it being allowed to determine the form that contact should take without the supervision of the court.Children - statements of oral evidenceRe S [1993] Independent, 23 August; CA 1989, Family Proceedings Court (CA 1989) Rules 1991.Justices had a mandatory duty to read statements of oral evidence and expert reports under the FPC (CA 1989) R before making an interim care order.Care orders - guardian ad litemManchester City Council v T [1993] The Times, 12 January; s.42 of the CA 1989.Where the local authority applied for a care order with a view to placing T with prospective adopters, s.42 of the CA 1989 gave T's guardian ad litem the right to see and take copies of a local authority confidential document relating to prospective adopters and to use the information in his report in order to protect T's welfare.

Unless the court had that information it would not be in a position to consider the suitability of the proposed placement.-- Section 8 ordersConditions - contact ordersRe M (A Minor) [1993] The Times, 10 November; s.11(7) of the CA 1989.

The justices ordered contact by post with the father who was in prison.

The mother was required to keep the father informed of the child's progress.

The mother appealed.

Appeal allowed.

There was no power under s.11(7) to order the mother to write reports on the child's progress.

The court did have jurisdiction under that section to order that one parent keeps the other informed of the child's whereabouts so that contact can be maintained.-- WardshipWardship - challenge of ex parte ordersRe A (Minor: Wardship) (Challenging ex parte orders) [1993] The Times, 5 October; CA 1989.Where a person wished to challenge an ex parte order, which made the child a ward of court and gave care and control to the mother, the correct procedure was to make an application to the court which made the order and ask it to rescind or vary it.Local authorities and wardshipDevon CC v S (Wardship) [ 1993] Independent, 20 December; s.100(2)(d) of the CA 1989.S had three young children and was regularly visited by Y.

Y had convictions for sexual offences.

The local authority applied to the court for the use of its inherent jurisdiction in order to protect the children.

The district judge refused the application holding that it was contrary to s.100(2)(d) of the CA 1989.The local authority's appeal was allowed.

S.100 should not be interpreted restrictively.

The authority should not be precluded from making use of the wardship jurisdiction.

Contact between the children and Y could be prevented - a result which could not be achieved by either a care or a supervision order.

Leave to apply for wardship was granted.Children - wardshipRe H (Minors) (Public interest) [1993] The Times, 27 December.The respondent was a transsexual.

Her young children were, with the court's approval, to remain in her care.

She appealed against an injunction preventing her from taking action which would expose the children to any form of publicity surrounding custody of them and her transsexuality and sex change operation.The terms of the injunction could be varied to permit publication by the media of the facts of the case and to allow the respondent to comment.

There was a legitimate public interest in the case and the welfare of the children was not paramount in such a situation.

However, in balancing the competing public interests, the protection of the children's identity must outweigh other considerations.-- Child abductionForeign judgmentsRe H (A Child) (Foreign order) [1993] The Times, 19 November; Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985.An order from a Belgian court which allowed a father visiting access with his daughter should not be enforced.

The words 'recognition and enforcement' in art 10(1) of the European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement Decisions Concerning Custody of Children 1980 should be construed disjunctively.

This would enable the court to take account of a change of circumstances affecting a child's welfare in accordance with the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985.Child abduction - foreign jurisdictionRe M (Minors) [1994] Independent, 3 January.An order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 to return children who were wrongfully removed or retained cannot be varied.

An application to set aside can only be made to the Court of Appeal.-- Child maintenanceChild supportCrozier v Crozier [1993] The Times, 9 December; Child Support Act 1991; Social Security Administration Act 1992.By a consent order following divorce, C transferred his interest in the matrimonial home in full and final settlement of his wife's financial claim.

In 1993, on an application under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, C was ordered to contribute towards the child's maintenance.

He expected this maintenance to be substantially increased as a consequence of the Child Support Act 1991.

He applied for leave to appeal out of time to vary the consent order and recover his share in the former matrimonial home.

He argued that the original transfer was intended to provide maintenance for the child - if future periodical payments had been anticipated he would never have agreed.His application was refused.

Although the clean break principle was part of the statutory code, it did not apply to the maintenance of children.

The state could always compel parents to make contributions towards their child's maintenance.

The fact that under the 1991 Act e nforcement was through an outside agency did not justify setting aside the original order.Maintenance - child's welfareNiebor v Niebor [1993] Independent, 23 August; s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.The welfare of the child was the first consideration under s.25 of the MCA 1973.

It could tip the balance in favour of extending maintenance beyond five years even when the parties had agreed in a consent order that it should not extend beyond that period.

-- Family provisionSuccession - family provisionHarlow v National Westminster Bank [1994] The Times, 3 January; s.3 of the Inheritance (Probate Family Division) Act 1975.H, a successful businessman, applied for financial provision from the estate of his father under the Inheritance (PFD) Act 1975.

His father and mother separated when he was three years old and no financial provision was made for him.

The court awarded H a share in the estate and three charities, the residual legatees, appealed.Appeal allowed.

Under s.3 the court must determine whether the deceased made reasonable financial provision for the applicant having regard to his obligations and responsibilities.

The judge was wrong to take into account obligations to maintain H whilst he was a child.

The court was entitled to consider only obligations which existed immediately before death.-- Family homeOuster ordersBrown v Brown [1993] The Times, 6 October; Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.The court had jurisdiction to make an ouster order under s.1 upon proof that the husband was jealous, strict and unyielding - there was a real need to protect the wife.

Evidence of past violence was not necessary.Non-molestation orderE v E [1994] The Times, 3 January.

Normally an ouster order would be granted to a wife if she proved rape or attempted rape by the husband.

In this case, the wife had given evidence that she did not necessarily want him out of the matrimonial home.

The judge was therefore entitled to make a non-molestation order and an order restraining him from entering her bedroom.ss.

8 and 15 of the CA 1989Re F (Minors) (Parental home: ouster) [1993] The Times, 1 December; ss.8 and 15 of the CA 1989.A mother appealed against the refusal of a county court judge to order that the father of her children be excluded from the house of which he was a joint tenant so that she could live there with the children.

She argued that this could be done by an s.8 specific issue order or that an injunction could be granted under the inherent jurisdiction.Appeal dismissed.

Although the children's best interests would be served by excluding the father, the court could not make an s.8 order where it would interfere with the father's right of occupation.

An injunction under the inherent jurisdiction could not be granted (see Ainsbury v Millington [1986] 1 All ER 73).

The mother could apply under s.15 and para 1(2)(e)(i) of sched 1 to the CA 1989 for a transfer of the father's interest in the joint tenancy.