1. What are the relevant facts of this case? [7 marks]
The pursuer, in this case, is the father and he sought a specific issue order that the two children from his relationship with the defender, the mother, be known by the name registered on their respective birth certificates. The defender also sought a specific issue order that the children be known by her surname by swearing to statutory declarations to that effect. The parties were never married.
The pursuer argued firstly that since both children MA and MJ with the agreement of the defender were already registered with his surname on their birth certificates and passports, that it was the defender who was seeking to change the name of the children.
The pursuer secondly referred to
…show more content…
Thereby, section 2(2) of the 1995 Act clearly stipulates that one party can act unilaterally in the exercise of parental rights without requiring the consent of the other unless there is a curtailment of this right by any decree of deed which conferred the right or regulates its exercise. However, the pursuer believed that such unilateral exercise of parental rights must be subject to the best interest of the children.
The defender, on the other hand, used Wilkinson and Norrie’s Parent and Child to support her view that the name under which a child is registered is of little real significance, that a person has the name by which they are known and that a child’s welfare is served by a child retaining the name by which he or she is known.
The sheriff’s opinion was that Wilkinson and Norrie’s statutory interpretation of section 2(4) of the 1995 Act and the subsequent approval in M v C were wrong. However, the sheriff agreed with Wilkinson and Norrie’s point of view that the English statutory background and the significance of registration is very different to the law of Scotland.
6. Referring to, but not repeating, your answers to the previous questions, describe the outcome of the case and explain how Sheriff Holligan reached his conclusion [15
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Facts: Plaintiff Donald Eschbach and Defendant Rite Eschbach were married in 1963 and divorce in 1979 the courts granted Plaintiff Eschbach the divorce on the basis of the couple lived separate and apart pursuant to a separation agreement for one year. The custody of the couple three children was granted to the mother to an oral stipulation of the parties entered in the minute of the court at inquest of the hearing held on January 1979. The stipulation, which also provided visitation rights for the children’s father, was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of the divorce.
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
Article 42A.1°1- This article relates to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of all children. It also continues to mention that the state, albeit as far as practicable, will vindicate the rights of all children. G v An Bord Uchtála2 was a case relating to Article 42.5°3 (which will now be deleted and replaced), related to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of the child which will now be protected under Article 42A.1. This case which concerned the rights of an unmarried mother saw the Supreme Court trying to expand the rights provided for under the now replaced article with no real continuity. The previous article relating to this placed no real emphasis on State intervention except in exceptional circumstances which will now be changed following the addition of the amended articles. Another interesting aspect of this amended article is the reference to "all children". Previously marital families enjoyed a specific set of rights and it was permissible to discriminate in favour of marital families in some cases. This discrimination arises from the protection offered under Article 41.3.2°4,_________________________________________________...
Joan B. Kelly, P. (2014). The Determination of Child Custody in the USA . Retrieved from http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/library/spca/docs/The%20Determination%20of%20Child%20Custody%20in%20the%20USA.pdf
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
When a court is dealing with proceedings relating to a child, section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) governs that the court’s paramount consideration shall lie with the child’s welfare. The term paramount was explained by Lord Macdermott in J v C which means ‘that the child’s welfare is to be treated as the top item in a list of items relevant to the matter of question’. His Lordship went on to explain that when all the relevant facts and circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the outcome chosen by the court is based on the interests of the relevant child. Therefore any other party’s interest is only considered as far as it contributes to promote the child’s best interest.
...d, ‘so far as the threshold conditions are concerned, the factor which seems to me to outweigh all others is the prospect than an unidentified, and unidentifiable, carer may inflict further injury on a child he or she has already severely damaged’. This approach was later applied in Merton LBC v K .
Looking into the leading case of McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, which is focusing on a resultant of an unwanted but healthy child. The wife became pregnant and gave birth to an unwanted healthy child due to the failed vasectomy of her husband. There are mainly two claims for the damages, which are the physical discomfort from her pregnancy and delivery and the costs associated with bringing up their healthy child. However, under the ruling by the House of Lords, only the former claim can be redeemed but not for the latter one as it would not be “fair, just or reasonable to impose on the doctor or his employer liability for the consequential responsibilities, imposed on or accepted by the parents to bring up a child”. Moreover, looking into another case on Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University NHS trust, which is focusing on the resultant child as a disabled one.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
In order to apply for an order, s.42(1) says the applicant must be “associated with the respondent” and the relevant definition for associated person and relevant child are set out in s.62 Family Law Act 1996. A child is a person under the age of 18, with any “relevant child” being defined in s.62(2) as “any child who is living with or might reasonably be expected to live with either party…any other child whose interests the court considers relevant.” In 1995-1996 parliament had widespread debates as to the definition of associated persons, for example whether it should include the terms “boyfriend” and “girlfriend”, however the difficulty surrounding the definition prevented this from happening and the introduction of the Family Law Act 1996
United Kingdom is a country with a distinctive set of legal system. It is fairly different from other countries having civil law based legal systems. The legal system in the United Kingdom consists of various sources of law, where other civil law based countries rely only on a written set of law. European influences on the English Legal System came much later in near decades. This essay will aim to examine the development of the English Legal System by reviewing applications of various sources of law in the English Legal System furthermore to discuss the recent European influences on the law of England.
The unfair hurdles that unmarried fathers have had to face, in comparison to mothers will also be considered. Before concluding that the reason for this lengthy process is society's opinion which has a serious effect on the law. Relevant Person Status Relevant person status is vital to those who wish to attend a children’s hearing in respect of their child. Relevant persons have both a duty and a right to attend a hearing.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...