header-logo header-logo

17 June 2010 / Rachel Morgan
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Facing the consequences

Rachel Morgan sheds light on hostile family break-ups & the use of a judicial weapon of last resort

Family practitioners are frequently met with the scenario where, upon relationship breakdown, one (or indeed both) parents are unhappy with the arrangements for their children. In happier cases, such difficulties can be resolved with a minimal amount of intervention by lawyers and the courts —once the initial hurt and acrimony have receded, the parents reach a modus vivendi which on the whole operates well—but in other cases children are not so fortunate and their parents can be engaged in litigation about them for many years.

When deciding a dispute in relation to the living arrangements for a child, the court must have regard to a checklist of factors set out at s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 (the welfare checklist), and must treat the child’s welfare as paramount. One of the factors is “the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances” which obliges practitioners to look at the situation on the ground

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll