header-logo header-logo

27 November 2014
Issue: 7632 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 28 November 2014

Parents’ positive presumption, first jactitation, now exequatur, joint tenant beware, & where the multies are going

Mum and dad do you good

They have arrived and to prove it, they are here. These are the provisions relating to various private law child applications contained in s 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014 which were commenced on 22 October 2014 by SI 2014/2749 but do not apply to prior proceedings which are still running. For reasons best known to someone, s 11 has come under the auspices of the Department for Education and was omitted from the ostensibly world-shattering children and family reforms which hit us on 22 April 2014.

So what is the latest reform all about? In the matter of contested applications to make, vary or discharge an order under s 8 of the Children Act 1989 and applications for parental responsibility under ss 44(1) (c), (2A) or 4ZA (1) (c) or (5) (got that?!), the presumption is raised that the involvement of a parent in the life of the child

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll