Proceeding contribution from Tim Loughton (Conservative) 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
I am sure that I am not going to agree with the hon. and learned Lady on this point. Why is this issue so different from the rest of the law, in which there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty? Why can there not be an assumption that a parent is a good parent until they are proven not to be, given all the checks and balances in the courts, which this Bill will reinforce? Why would such a presumption undermine the welfare of the child?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 443 c467
- 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 17:11:44 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304442
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304442
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304442