Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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 articles
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

The Things We Say

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : the-things-we-say
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 23, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87903

Gwynn Davis. On 2 May 2006 the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee held a one-day session in which it revisited the topic of the family courts (by which it actually meant the courts role in private law disputes concerning children). This revisiting occurred some 18 months after the Committee first took a sustained look at this topic (see Fourth Report of Session 2004-05, HC 116-1 and 116-2). The author acted as adviser to the committee on that first occasion, along with Andrew McFarlane QC and so was interested to discover what had prompted this second look at the topic and also to see whether anything new would emerge. The original enquiry had been the authors first exposure to Parliamentary proceedings in the role of adviser and, while having ones coruscating insights conveyed imperfectly by MPs gave rise to occasional frustration, not to mention moments of high comedy, the author emerged with considerable respect for the Committees members, its secretariat, and in particular for its resourceful Chairman, Alan Beith MP. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seemed to the author that MPs were better at questioning their own (other politicians) than they were at unravelling the arcane mysteries of professional practice, but that does not mean that the attempt should not be made. See November [2006] Fam Law for the full article.

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