header-logo header-logo

27 November 2014
Issue: 7632 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 28 November 2014

Parents’ positive presumption, first jactitation, now exequatur, joint tenant beware, & where the multies are going

Mum and dad do you good

They have arrived and to prove it, they are here. These are the provisions relating to various private law child applications contained in s 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014 which were commenced on 22 October 2014 by SI 2014/2749 but do not apply to prior proceedings which are still running. For reasons best known to someone, s 11 has come under the auspices of the Department for Education and was omitted from the ostensibly world-shattering children and family reforms which hit us on 22 April 2014.

So what is the latest reform all about? In the matter of contested applications to make, vary or discharge an order under s 8 of the Children Act 1989 and applications for parental responsibility under ss 44(1) (c), (2A) or 4ZA (1) (c) or (5) (got that?!), the presumption is raised that the involvement of a parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare—unless the contrary is shown.

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