header-logo header-logo

26 May 2011 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7467 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Children first: but which one?

Jonathan Herring examines the courts’ approach to conflict in two children custody cases

The general public is notoriously bad at understanding the law. But a central principle of family law is one that seems to have entered most people’s consciousness: in a case involving disputes over children, the child’s welfare should be the paramount consideration. That principle is found in the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), s 1. Although as any family lawyers will be quick to add, the principle is easier to state than to apply in practice.
The Court of Appeal has recently considered it in LSA v RBS [2011] EWCA Civ 454, [2011] All ER (D) 178 (Apr) and addressed a particularly difficult issue: what if a case involves two children and order A will benefit one child, but order B will benefit the other? Which child’s welfare is paramount? 

The facts

The facts of case are a good example of the problem. A couple had separated just over four years before the hearing. They had two boys:

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

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
back-to-top-scroll