Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
Stranded spouses: an overview
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4PB, author of A Practical Guide to Stranded Spouses in Family Law ProceedingsThis article provides an overview of the issues that often arise in cases...
Pension apportionment: resisting the straight-line orthodoxy
Fiona Hay, 2 Harcourt BuildingsDavid Lockett, Senior Actuary, Actuaries for Lawyers LtdPension Apportionment – resisting the Straight-Line Orthodoxy. In non-needs cases it is often critical to...
Now is the time to reassess presumption of parental involvement in cases involving domestic abuse
Lea Levine, Paralegal at Stewarts and former independent domestic violence advisorIn this article, paralegal and former independent domestic violence advisor (“IDVA”) Lea Levine...
Equality roulette: assessing the legality of the Department of Education’s guidance on gender questioning students in schools (Part 2)
Dr Bianca Jackson, Family law barrister, Coram ChambersThis is Part 2 of a three-part article exploring the possible legal difficulties for schools and colleges that adopt the Department for...
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
View all articles
Authors

Judicial Criticism of Government Paper

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Title : Judicial Criticism of Government Paper
Slug : judicial-criticism-of-government-paper
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : 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