The Family Law Week Blog is a companion site to Family Law Week. It complements the news, cases and articles published on Family Law Week with additional comment and coverage of the wider aspects of family law.
A chief constable could face jail and an end to his 35-year police career for defying a High Court order to return computers suspected of holding a huge collection of child abuse images to a controversial expert: see the full story in the Times .
From the Times the inquiry into NHS failings, conducted by the Care Quality Commission and published this week, concluded that doctors and other health professionals had contact with the little boy 35 times but every chance to raise the alarm was missed. Any one of these professionals could have picked up that he was suffering abuse if they had been “particularly vigilant” and gone “beyond what was required” by the system, the health regulator said.
Evening Standard reported that a senior doctor told how he had repeatedly warned about failings at the child protection clinic which missed the injuries that killed Baby P. Professor Sundara Lingam told the Standard that he had written a series of letters raising the alarm over problems at the clinic in St Ann's Hospital in Haringey when he was director of community child health and follows it up today with a story about the alleged spin campaign by GOSH with Lynne Featherstone,MP for Haringey where Baby P lived, saying that the children's hospital's chief executive, Jane Collins, “misled” the public after revelations about problems at the child protection clinic in St Ann's Hospital, Tottenham, which Great Ormond Street runs.
If you like a good juicy costs judgment you'll love this (Hashem v Shayif & Ors  EWHC 864 (Fam) (17 April 2009)). More twists and turns than a Hollywood blockbuster and a cast almost as big.
Although I don't generally aspire to read costs judgments (or any judgments at all) on a bank holiday Monday this is actually surprisingly interesting and informative, and deals with a number of points arising from costs issues involving third parties (family company and and the children of the family) arising from both ancillary relief proceedings and related Chancery proceedings, costs orders against one party that he should pay the costs of the other party incurred in other litigation, and costs orders where the paying party is publicly funded.