.png){kind=icon}
Private disputes over children
- What effect, if any, is the addition of the ‘parental involvement presumption’ in s 1(2A) of the CA 1989 likely to make to the way in which child arrangements orders about spending time or having contact are made?
- Do you think in reality that the courts have been applying a ‘presumption’ in favour of the child’s mother in disputes about the person with whom a child should live? Could such a presumption be justified?
- Should the division of labour agreed between parents pre-separation determine post-separation patterns of care? Would a ‘primary carer’ presumption help promote gender equality in both pre and post-separation parenting?
- What factors would tend to support the making of an order for shared living arrangements?
- Should natural parents be privileged in a dispute about the person(s) with whom a child is to live? Can the judgment of Baroness Hale in Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-Sex Partner) [2006] UKHL 43 be reconciled with the decision of the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5?
- Does the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2001] Fam 260, adequately address the concern that domestic violence is being marginalized in disputes about a child spending time or otherwise having contact with a person? What approach should the courts take to such cases with a violent or abusive parent?
- Would you commit a mother to prison for persistent breaches of a child arrangements order? Do you think there are effective alternatives for enforcing these orders?
- How do you think the court should approach relocation disputes? Should there be a ‘starting point’ or ‘presumption’ (or more than one, for different kinds of case), or is a ‘pure’ welfare approach best? What are the problems with each approach?