header-logo header-logo

24 November 2023 / David Burrows
Issue: 8050 / Categories: Features , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

A stitch in time in the family courts (Pt 2)

147362
David Burrows on why the law must not discriminate against children involved in Pt 2 proceedings
  • A statutory presumption: that court delay is prejudicial to a child’s welfare.
  • Welfare is not divisible: ‘delay’ & listing children cases.
  • What does Children Act 1989, s 1(2) mean?

Take four propositions of law in relation to children proceedings under Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). The first is that, under the heading, ‘Welfare of the child’, CA 1989, s 1(2) says: ‘In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.’ Section 1(1)(a) explains this: that if a court is dealing with ‘the upbringing of a child… the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration’. This provision applies to any child where any proceedings (CA 1989, Pts 2 or 4) are taken in respect of that child.

Second, under the heading the ‘Period within which application

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll