Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

The issue of jurisdiction should be addressed at the outset of the proceedings and dealt with in a procedurally appropriate manner.

Inherent and statutory jurisdiction

Statutory jurisdiction is found in a wide range of domestic legislation including the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), the Children Act 1989 and the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973).

Most aspects of family law are governed by domestic statute and statutory instruments together with various Hague Conventions. See practice Note: Hague Conventions—toolkit for family practitioners. However, there remain cases where recourse will be made to the inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction is not confined to the wardship jurisdiction, thus it is not necessary for a child to be a ward of court before the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. The procedure in relation to wardship proceedings is governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955. In relation to children proceedings the High Court inherent jurisdiction derives from the Royal Prerogative, as parens patriae, ie to take care of those who are not able to take care of themselves.

See

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Event to mark the 25th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and to launch the work of the Online Procedure Rule Committee

On 16 July 2025, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Birss gave speeches at an event hosted by the Ministry of Justice and The Law Society. The event marked the 25th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) and launched the public engagement work carried out by the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC).

Family weekly highlights—24 July 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision on post-adoption contact and consideration of the court's jurisdiction to set aside pension sharing orders. Recent judgments on extended orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 and the jurisdictional basis to make an application for a legal services payment order are also considered.

Need to undertake holistic risk assessment. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989—Care orders. Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Re H)

Local Government analysis: This Court of Appeal judgment provides a reminder to judges when making final care orders (or declining to do so as in this case) of the need to undertake a careful and holistic risk assessment within any final judgment. The judgment is a clear reminder of the need to assess risk with reference to the facts and as set against the welfare checklist and to properly analyse all parts of the evidence heard and illustrate this in the judgement. The court determined that the evaluation required a careful analysis of the evidence which regrettably was not carried out in this case. Written by Hannah Markham KC, head of team at 36 Family.

Post adoption contact—where are we now? (Re S (Placement Order Contact))

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal judgment in Re S (Placement Order Contact) carefully considers the court’s approach to contact between siblings at the placement for adoption stage. There has been a shift in recent years with a great deal of research as to the potential advantages to adopted children of maintaining some sort of direct contact with their birth family. That being said, on the ground it remains unusual for orders to be made under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) for direct contact, with proposals in final care plans often being for indirect or letterbox contact. The Court of Appeal makes clear that in each case where placement orders are made, there needs to be a bespoke analysis of the future contact arrangements, in order to meet the complex and life-long needs of children who are to be placed for adoption. Written by Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP.