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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
FIFA’s 2026 Men's World Cup is already mired in controversy, with complaints over ‘excessive prices’ and opaque ticketing. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys warns that governing bodies may face scrutiny under EU competition law, with allegations of a ‘dominant—if not monopolistic—position’ in ticket sales
Ten years after Brexit, UK and EU trade mark regimes are drifting apart in practice if not principle. Writing in NLJ this week, Roger Lush and Lara Elder of Carpmaels & Ransford highlight tighter UK scrutiny after SkyKick, where overly broad filings may signal ‘bad faith’
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
back-to-top-scroll