Specific issue orders

Specific issue orders

A specific issue order is an order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) that gives directions for determining a specific question that has arisen, or that may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child.

It can be used to determine questions about a child's upbringing, such as whether the child should go to a state school or be educated privately or in relation to medical treatment including immunisation, or issues relating to religion. It may also be used to resolve disputes regarding the child’s name or taking the child out of the jurisdiction. A specific issue order can be made on its own or it may be made with another order such as a child arrangements order (CAO).

See Practice Note: Specific issue orders.

ChA 1989 sets out the circumstances in which the court should not make a specific issue order, including, inter alia:

  1. where a child is in the care of the local authority

  2. where it in any way denies to the High Court the exercise of its inherent

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents