header-logo header-logo

22 February 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7502 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Shared parenting

HLE blogger Guy Skelton examines the lessons from Australia on shared parenting after divorce

The recent government response to the Family Justice Review has at its centre an entitlement to a legally binding presumption of shared parenting. Legislation in favour of shared parenting would represent the greatest change to the Children Act since its creation in 1989. Arguably, the proposal represents a levelling of the playing field, addressing a perceived imbalance in the treatment of parents post-separation. However, to some it is a legislative minefield detracting from the primary consideration—the child.

Prior to the government’s response, David Norgrove, author of the independent Family Justice Review, stressed that the current law should not be changed, citing the difficulties encountered under Australia’s shared parenting laws. Despite the recommendation of the independent review, the government believes that legislative change offers the best protection for families in England and Wales.

But which elements of the Act would the government seek to amend? Many organisations, including single parents’ charity Gingerbread, share Norgrove’s concerns—that the government must learn from the fallout of the Australian amendments and not legislate in haste.

Under Australia’s Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, the court begins with the principle of equal division of custody. The presumption may be rebutted “by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child” (s 61D(4)). The second key feature of the amendments was the explicit statement that shared parental responsibility creates obligations to share decision-making (s 65DAC(3))…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

 

Issue: 7502 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll