Section 8 Orders (1o)
- 20o4: ‘A child’s welfare is always the judge’s paramount concern.’ Discuss in relaton to EITHER contact
disputes OR relocaton disputes.
- 20o3: ‘On-going contact with a non-residental parent is so crucial to a child’s welfare that the courts
should be given greater powers to enforce contact orders.’ Discuss.
- 20o2: ‘The Government believes that there should be a legislatve statement of the importance of children
having an ongoing relatonship with both their parents afer family separaton’ (The Government Response to
the Family Justce Review, 2012) To what extent, if at all, do you agree?
- 20oo: In the context of shared residence orders OR the enforcement of contact orders, critcally discuss
whether the courts have been more concerned with the needs of adults than with promotng child welfare.
- 20o0: ‘Making contact happen and, even more importantly, making contact work is one of the most
difficult and contentous challenges in the whole of family law.’ (raroness Hale, Re G 2006) Discuss.
- 2009: ‘The welfare of children is interpreted by the courts, by the legislature and by professionals involved
in disputes over contact in a way that priorities contact and shared residence. It has become increasingly
difficult for resident parents, usually mothers, to resist demands that they consent to and encourage the
maintenance of relatonships between children and non-resident parents.’ Discuss.
Issues:
· What criteria are used by the courts in making decisions about the upbringing of children?
· What is the court's’ approach to questons about the person(s) with whom a child should live and the person(s)
with whom they should spend tme and otherwise have contact?
NOTE: This week is focused on ‘child arrangements orders’; there is a change in terminology in 2014, from
‘residence’ and ‘contact’ to ‘child arrangements’, but the substance is the same.
Primary Reading :
Textbooks for this week and next - one of:
Diduck and Kaganas Ch 10
Harris-Short, Miles and George Ch 11 ✓
Herring Ch 10
Children Act 1989, Sectons 1 and 8
D v D (Shared Residence Order) [2001] 1 FLR 495.
Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-Sex Partner) [2006] UKHL 43 [for an alternatve approach, Diduck and Monk in
Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley (2010) Feminist Judgments (Hart)].
Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5
Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA (Civ) 999
Re L, V, M and H (Contact: Domestc Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334 [for comment, Kaganas 12 CFLQ 311 ✓,
and her alternative approach in Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley (2010) Feminist Judgments (Hart); note
also that the expert report used by the court was published and is worth reading: C. Sturge and D. Glaser,
“Contact and Domestc Violence—The Experts’ Court Report” [2000] Family Law 615]
Ratio:
● When considering contact applicatons afer domestc violence, the approach should be child
centred, and according to the criteria in the Act.
● The circumstances of the violence should be looked into, and the potentally damaging efect of
contact with a violent parent should not be underestmated.
● The parent’s possible contributon to the child and facing up to the reality of what had happened
should be allowed for.
● Stll domestc violence was not an absolute bar to contact.
● The term ‘parental alienaton’ is unhelpful, and is beter thought of as outright hostlity.
- 20o4: ‘A child’s welfare is always the judge’s paramount concern.’ Discuss in relaton to EITHER contact
disputes OR relocaton disputes.
- 20o3: ‘On-going contact with a non-residental parent is so crucial to a child’s welfare that the courts
should be given greater powers to enforce contact orders.’ Discuss.
- 20o2: ‘The Government believes that there should be a legislatve statement of the importance of children
having an ongoing relatonship with both their parents afer family separaton’ (The Government Response to
the Family Justce Review, 2012) To what extent, if at all, do you agree?
- 20oo: In the context of shared residence orders OR the enforcement of contact orders, critcally discuss
whether the courts have been more concerned with the needs of adults than with promotng child welfare.
- 20o0: ‘Making contact happen and, even more importantly, making contact work is one of the most
difficult and contentous challenges in the whole of family law.’ (raroness Hale, Re G 2006) Discuss.
- 2009: ‘The welfare of children is interpreted by the courts, by the legislature and by professionals involved
in disputes over contact in a way that priorities contact and shared residence. It has become increasingly
difficult for resident parents, usually mothers, to resist demands that they consent to and encourage the
maintenance of relatonships between children and non-resident parents.’ Discuss.
Issues:
· What criteria are used by the courts in making decisions about the upbringing of children?
· What is the court's’ approach to questons about the person(s) with whom a child should live and the person(s)
with whom they should spend tme and otherwise have contact?
NOTE: This week is focused on ‘child arrangements orders’; there is a change in terminology in 2014, from
‘residence’ and ‘contact’ to ‘child arrangements’, but the substance is the same.
Primary Reading :
Textbooks for this week and next - one of:
Diduck and Kaganas Ch 10
Harris-Short, Miles and George Ch 11 ✓
Herring Ch 10
Children Act 1989, Sectons 1 and 8
D v D (Shared Residence Order) [2001] 1 FLR 495.
Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-Sex Partner) [2006] UKHL 43 [for an alternatve approach, Diduck and Monk in
Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley (2010) Feminist Judgments (Hart)].
Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5
Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA (Civ) 999
Re L, V, M and H (Contact: Domestc Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334 [for comment, Kaganas 12 CFLQ 311 ✓,
and her alternative approach in Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley (2010) Feminist Judgments (Hart); note
also that the expert report used by the court was published and is worth reading: C. Sturge and D. Glaser,
“Contact and Domestc Violence—The Experts’ Court Report” [2000] Family Law 615]
Ratio:
● When considering contact applicatons afer domestc violence, the approach should be child
centred, and according to the criteria in the Act.
● The circumstances of the violence should be looked into, and the potentally damaging efect of
contact with a violent parent should not be underestmated.
● The parent’s possible contributon to the child and facing up to the reality of what had happened
should be allowed for.
● Stll domestc violence was not an absolute bar to contact.
● The term ‘parental alienaton’ is unhelpful, and is beter thought of as outright hostlity.
