header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008 / David Burrows
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Public , Legal services , Family
printer mail-detail

Public v family

Child support is a family, not an administrative, matter says David Burrows (from the barricades)

A strange and uncomfortable cohabitation exists between family (private), and administrative (public), lawyers over interpretations of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) and in representation of parents and the secretary of state for work and pensions in child support proceedings. Is the law of child support maintenance more akin to family law; or is it more aptly the province of the administrative lawyer? You might think the name was a giveaway: finance for children surely implies family law? I doubt the lawyers who represent the secretary of state for work and pensions (who act in these cases) would agree.

My last case on child support (in early February) was an application for a declaration for two parents who said that certain aspects of the scheme had denied them the right to a fair—or indeed any—trial of issues relating to two assessments to child support maintenance many years ago. They were long out of time, probably, for

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