Fundamental principles

Private law applications in relation to children are predominantly governed by the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), though they also overlap with the Human Rights Act 1998. They often relate to applications made under ChA 1989, s 8 for child arrangements orders (CAOs), specific issue and prohibited steps orders, and applications made for parental responsibility.

Paramountcy of the child's welfare

ChA 1989 provides that when determining any question with respect to:

•
the upbringing of a child, or
•
the administration of a child's property or the application of any income arising from it,

the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration.

Upbringing includes the care of the child but not their maintenance.

See Practice Note: Private children—paramountcy of the child's welfare.

Welfare of the child—presumption of continued parental involvement

Pursuant to ChA 1989, s 1(2A), where the court is considering one of the following applications, it must, in relation to each parent, presume (unless the contrary is shown) that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further that child's welfare:

•
a contested application

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Family considers the interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy and the role of the financial dispute resolution hearing in financial remedy proceedings. Four new flowcharts setting out the steps to be taken in applications for financial provision after overseas divorce or dissolution and applications for pension sharing orders are set out, together with details of a new webinar on AI and family law.

Exceptional reasons required to bypass FDRs (GH v GH)

Family analysis: In GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel confirmed the importance of the financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) and that bypassing this hearing to go from first appointment to final hearing is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. This applies even where financial positions are not fully crystallised at the time of the FDR.

Family weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Family Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes, the President of the Family Division’s address to the British Society of Paediatric Radiologists and the Family Justice Council’s 17th annual debate. Judgments in relation to parental orders, charging orders and overseas adoption are considered. Details of a new toolkit on Scottish family law are set out.

The interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy (DDR v BDR)

Family analysis: This judgment shows the court adopting a highly structured approach to the determination of questions of property law prior to the determination of a financial remedy application against a backdrop of bankruptcy proceedings, procedural and evidential confusion and limited involvement of lawyers until a late stage. It is also a user-friendly reminder of the court's approach to common intention constructive trusts and the quantification of beneficial interests in a sole legal owner case.