header-logo header-logo

Family

05 September 2013
Issue: 7574 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Re G (a child) (care order: proportionality) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, [2013] All ER (D) 375 (Jul)

The authorities had made it clear that, following the process of finding any relevant facts, the court in a public law children case had to first make an evaluation to determine whether the statutory threshold criteria in s 31 of the Children Act 1989 were established with respect to the individual child or children as at the relevant date. If the threshold criteria were established, the final stage of the proceedings involved the court evaluating which set of arrangements for the child’s future care were to be endorsed by the court’s order and the evaluation was conducted by affording paramount consideration to the child’s welfare (the welfare evaluation).

Under s 1 of the Act, when a court determined any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, the court had to treat the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. A judge could not properly decide that a care order should be made in such circumstances, unless the order was

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll