PRRs And Court Orders

Question 1

S.7 1995 Act

Answer 1

Guardian is a substantive parent and has some PRRs

Question 2

S2. 1995 Act

Answer 2

Exercise of PRRs, where 2 of more people have PRRs they exist among side the rights of each other and they may act without the consent of one another however there is an obligation to consent when making a big decision eg- required before moving child from the UK

Question 3

S11(3)(a)(i) 1995 Act

Answer 3

Anyone with sufficient interest can apply eg.grandparents

Question 4

S11(7) principles

Answer 4

1- welfare of the child is most important
2- child must be able to express their views to some degree
3- court will not make an order unless doing so will be better than making no order at all

Question 5

1 - Welfare Princiole

Osborne v Manhattan

Answer 5

Welfare is Most important does not mean it is exclusive

The child’s welfare tends to prevail over other intentions- foster and birth mother dispute of custody- court decided to look at what the welfare of the child requires. Child stayed with foster family

Question 6

Shields v Shields

Answer 6

Decision on getting to take 2 kids to Australia reversed because she didn’t consider the views of the children

Question 7

Russel v Russel

Answer 7

How much weight should be given to the children in their views- child’s bad feelings for dad due to mum held shouldn’t be taken into consideration

Question 8

Perendes v sim

Answer 8

No there’s views impacted child’s views so little significant was given to child’s views

Question 9

Capacity of views of child

Answer 9

Children over 12 presumed to be capable and sometimes younger than 12 will have the opportunity

Question 10

Brixey v Lymas

Answer 10

Applying the welfare principle to residence orders
Mothers care of a young child- sheriff made father resident and then the mother appealed successfully on basis that the COS believed that the child should stay with the mother practically

Question 11

Hannah v Hannah

Answer 11

Change in position to brixley v Lymas - ‘it is not nature but welfare’ which is the material matter and here the father was awarded custody

Question 12

Early v early

Answer 12

Changing attitudes to sexual orientation of parents - mother lost custody partially due to being in a same sex relationship, the court was willing to move on and disrupt child but ended up not doing it because the siblings resided there

Question 13

Salve Rio day silva moula v Portugal

Answer 13

Illustrated violation of ECHR when sexual orientation of parents determines custody of a child, cannot take gender or sexuality into account