CHILDREN ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe Children Act advisory committee annual report 1994/95 (Lord Chancellor's Department 1995) is, like its predecessors, required reading for children lawyers.

Much of it considers the committee's justified concern over delay in children proceedings (a question being considered further by Dame Margaret Booth, whose report is expected soon).The report looks again at expert evidence and its proper use in children proceedings.

It includes a suggested letter of instruction for experts (p.28).

The committee's view is stated to be that representation of any party in children proceedings should only be by 'barristers and solicitors who have undergone specific training' and who have been examined as to their 'competence and suitability' (p.31).

Other subjects reviewed include children's evidence in civil and criminal proceedings and the role of guardians ad litem and court welfare officers.

There is a helpful note by His Honour Judge Nigel Fricker QC on enforcement of contact orders (p.45).The committee anticipates that its existence, 'to monitor a new Act', may not be extended beyond July 1997.

It is to be hoped that the Lord Chancellor, whoever that may be in July 1997, will see the importance of retaining this committee as one which authoritatively oversees the still- developing work done by courts and practitioners under the Children Act 1989.JURISDICTION OF THE ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH COURTSJurisdicti on of courts in England and Wales in children proceedings is governed by ss.2(2) and 3 of the Family Law Act 1986 and depends on (a) the child's habitual residence in England and Wales or (b) the child's being present in England or Wales but not habitually resident elsewhere in the UK.

The date for determination is the date on which application is made to the court (s.7(c)).

In D v D (Custody: Jurisdiction) [1996] 1 FLR 574 a mother removed two children unilaterally from their home in Scotland to Manchester.

The family had recently returned to Scotland after living in Spain for two years.

The children returned for a holiday with their father and stayed on in Scotland.Proceedings were commenced both in England and in Scotland.

Hale J held that the children were habitually resident in Scotland at the relevant time.

Even if they were not, since one parent cannot unilaterally change habitual residence where both have parental responsibility, then they were not habitually resident in England, but present in Scotland.

The English proceedings were therefore dismissed.

(See Re J (A Minor) (Abduction: custody rights) [1990] 2 AC 562 for a helpful consideration of the subject of habitual residence.)