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:

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Principles applicable by Court of Protection for recognition and enforcement of Scottish Guardianship order (Argyll and Bute Council v RF)

Private Client analysis: The case concerns a guardianship order made in Scotland in January 2025 for three years in respect of RF. There were two issues in the case. The first was whether the guardianship order gave Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Local Authority’) the power to authorise the deprivation of RF’s liberty in England. The second issue was, if so, whether the Court of Protection in England and Wales should grant recognition and enforcement of the guardianship order as applied for by the Local Authority. The Official Solicitor on behalf of RF opposed the application on the grounds that there was no effective route for RF to challenge his confinement or trigger a review of the restrictions on him. In dealing with these arguments the court gave a useful analysis of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) as applied to any specific guardianship order. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

President of the Family Division delivers speech on changes and future priorities

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has delivered a speech at the 2025 Resolution Conference reflecting on decades of change in family justice, recent achievements and future priorities. Through collaborative effort, Sir Andrew reflected that the system has achieved a reduction of approximately 20% in public law cases and 30% in private law cases from Covid-era highs.

Does the shortfall in experts’ fees always fall to the local authority? (Re K and Re S (Legal Aid: Experts’ Fees)

Family analysis: It has been a longstanding practice in public law children cases that when experts’ fees exceed the rates set out in the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) guidelines, and prior authority is not granted by the LAA to cover the higher charging rate or number of hours, then the local authority either agrees or can be directed by the court to cover the shortfall. The LAA has now amended its guidance to clarify that this should not routinely be the case, unless exceptional circumstances warrant it, and provided guidance to practitioners when making applications for prior authority for experts’ fees. This has now been explored by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, and ‘general principles’ to follow when it comes to the instruction of experts in public law children cases, including template orders which are included in the judgment. Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP, looks at the implications.

Costs of maintenance pending suit application disproportionate to relief sought (DSD v MJW)

Family analysis: This straightforward judgment is a salutary warning to would-be maintenance pending suit (MPS) applicants in respect of proportionality. The applicant wife had spent nearly £9,000 in relation to her unsuccessful claim for what would have been (at best) four months of MPS payments at a rate of £500 per month. Deputy District Judge David Hodson was highly critical of the disproportionate and last-minute application, going as far as to say that it had ‘done only ill’ for the reputation of both the family court and family lawyers. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.