Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Judicial Criticism of Government Paper

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : judicial-criticism-of-government-paper
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 4, 2006, 03:58 AM
Article ID : 87935

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Wall criticised the government consultation paper Separate Representation of Children (CP 20/06) during a lecture in honour of Professor Mervyn Murch at Cardiff University on 30 November 2006, saying that, unlike the consultation paper on transparency which was well argued and persuasive, he had a very poor opinion" of the separate representation consultation paper and that he would say so in his response to it. His Lordship also disapproved of the government's treatment of the published research undertaken by Gillian Douglas, Mervyn, Claire Miles and Lesley Scanlan, Research into the operation of Rule 9.5 of the FPR 1991 (see [2006] Fam Law 385) saying that the research should not have been used to support the conclusion that party status and separate representation were not of benefit to all such children. For the full news story see January [2007] Fam Law.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from