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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll