Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 2 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Children and Adoption Bill (HL).
Children and Adoption Bill
It is for the NSPCC to explain its interpretation of what it has put out in its briefing. The position that we are taking does not imply a qualitative different judgment about the safety or otherwise of the non-resident parent. We must trust the courts to make individual decisions. It is important to understand—I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman does—that a statutory presumption in law is something that the courts must follow in all but exceptional circumstances. Therefore, a statutory presumption starts to fetter the discretion of the courts and makes a fundamentally different model that would compromise in law the principle of paramountcy.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 443 c439
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Children Compensation Adoption CAFCASS Arbitration Contact orders Absent parents Custody Enforcement Domestic abuse Divorce Intercountry adoption Fathers Grandparents Family proceedings Pilot schemes Protection Parents Powers Risk assessment Contempt of court Safety Separation
- Legislation
- Children and Adoption Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-05-17 17:11:39 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304405
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304405
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304405