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

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

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

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