Jonathan Herring examines the courts’ approach to conflict in two children custody cases
The general public is notoriously bad at understanding the law. But a central principle of family law is one that seems to have entered most people’s consciousness: in a case involving disputes over children, the child’s welfare should be the paramount consideration. That principle is found in the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), s 1. Although as any family lawyers will be quick to add, the principle is easier to state than to apply in practice.
The Court of Appeal has recently considered it in LSA v RBS [2011] EWCA Civ 454, [2011] All ER (D) 178 (Apr) and addressed a particularly difficult issue: what if a case involves two children and order A will benefit one child, but order B will benefit the other? Which child’s welfare is paramount?
The facts
The facts of case are a good example of the problem. A couple had separated just over four years before the hearing. They had two boys: B (aged 16 ½) and C (aged 12). They lived with
