header-logo header-logo

24 November 2023 / David Burrows
Issue: 8050 / Categories: Features , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

A stitch in time in the family courts (Pt 2)

147362
David Burrows on why the law must not discriminate against children involved in Pt 2 proceedings
  • A statutory presumption: that court delay is prejudicial to a child’s welfare.
  • Welfare is not divisible: ‘delay’ & listing children cases.
  • What does Children Act 1989, s 1(2) mean?

Take four propositions of law in relation to children proceedings under Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). The first is that, under the heading, ‘Welfare of the child’, CA 1989, s 1(2) says: ‘In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.’ Section 1(1)(a) explains this: that if a court is dealing with ‘the upbringing of a child… the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration’. This provision applies to any child where any proceedings (CA 1989, Pts 2 or 4) are taken in respect of that child.

Second,

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll