header-logo header-logo

27 July 2017 / David Burrows
Issue: 7756 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Child’s play (Pt 3)

David Burrows concludes his series by considering the question of a child’s view & understanding in children proceedings

  • When should a court take account of a mature child’s wishes and feelings?
  • ​What rights to be heard on decision-making and release of confidential information does a child have?
  • When is a child entitled to be treated as of having sufficient understanding to have a view and take part in proceedings?

This series of three articles has considered the part children can play in English family proceedings and children’s rights in UK and European Union law. Finally it looks at the significance in any family proceedings a child’s understanding of the issues material to a court or other decision about them (such as release of confidential information). A ‘child’ for this purpose is in law a person under 18 (Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) s 105).

The term ‘understanding’ is used of children’s views in English law in, for example, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] UKHL 7, [1986] 1 AC 112, [1986]

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll