News & Articles
Legislation & Guidance
Other Useful Links
Online service practice areas
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Family Law Precedent Service
Rayden and Jackson on Relationship Breakdown, Finances and Children
Clarke Hall and Morrison on Children
Family Law Reports
Court of Protection Law Reports
Books and eBooks
The Family Court Practice (Red Book)
Civil Court Service
Court of Protection Practice
International Family Law Journal
Child and Family Law
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a week
On demand: 1hr of training for just £70
Upcoming: Civil Procedure Rules for family lawyers
Family Law Awards
Visit us at
FLBA National Conference 2018
Dispute Resolution Conference 2018
Ongoing Family Law coverage
Weekly news and comment straight to your inbox
Our books cover a variety of different topics
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues"
Sir Mark Potter P
Expert commentary on key aspects which arise in the family courts
 … The existing law erects a presumption against a child giving evidence which requires to be rebutted by anyone seeking to put questions to the child. That cannot be reconciled with the approach of the ECtHR, which always aims to strike a fair balance between competing Convention rights. Article 6 requires that the proceedings overall be fair and this normally entails an opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the other side. But even in criminal proceedings account must be taken of the article 8 rights of the perceived victim: see SN v Sweden (App No 34209/96), 2 July 2002, BAILII:  ECHR 551. Striking that balance in care proceedings may well mean that the child should not be called to give evidence in the great majority of cases, but that is a result and not a presumption or even a starting point.
 … envisaged that she may actually proceed to put questions to G. The parties were directed to agree and provide to the Adviser "a list of proposed questions … that they would seek to be put to G". The officer was then to meet G in a neutral venue and it was:…left to the Adviser's professional judgment as how to conduct the interviews and whether or not the questions should or should not be put to G and if so the format and formulation of the questions or any additional questions the Adviser feels appropriate to the issues in Re W but the Court's provisional expectation would be that none of the questions proposed by the parties should be put on the first occasion or until the Adviser feels appropriate.
Buy family law books from LexisNexis
© RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis 2018.