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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll