Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
Children and Same Sex Families
Children and Same Sex Families
Children and Same Sex Families: A Legal Handbook
More info
Mental Capacity
Mental Capacity
Mental Capacity: Law and Practice
More info
Evidence in Family Proceedings
Evidence in Family Proceedings
Evidence in Family Proceedings
More info
View All
A day in the life Of...
Read on

Child Support Act 1991: no duty of care to children

© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Date:1 AUG 2007

David Burrows Solicitor Advocate. The common law as it is said to be after R (Rowley) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Resolution Intervening) [2007 EWCA Civ 598 [2007] FLR (forthcoming) is letting down a substantial group of mostly needy children needy because they are from single parent homes and it is argued because of the depradations of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Child Support Agency. Was Rowley decided per incuriam? The case in the Court of Appeal was argued by five administrative lawyers and two tort specialists: none nor any of the judges were known for their knowledge of family law.

In this article David Burrows revisits the fundamental principles underlying child support. In R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 48 [2005] 2 FLR 1249 Baroness Hale of Richmond observed that the case which was in reality a case about children's rights concerning the obligation to maintain children and the corresponding right of children to obtain the benefit of that obligation had been presented largely as...

Read the full article here.

Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis