Domestic violence Bill

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill appeared - a little limply, after all the hype - on the legal and political scene at the beginning of December.

Clause 1 introduces an amendment to Family Law Act 1996 (section 42A) which makes it an offence to do 'anything [the defendant] is prohibited from doing by a non-molestation order'.

Cohabitants will include same-sex couples.

Proceedings may be brought against an 'associated person', the definition of which extends to people who have had 'an intimate relationship...

of significant duration' - fuel for all sorts of intriguing cross-examination there.

The controversial proposal that a restraining order can be made if a person is acquitted of a harassment charge is at clause 8(3) as an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; but how many of us use that neglected piece of legislation?

So the crossover from family/civil to criminal, started by the 1997 Harassment Act, is extended.

Domestic abuse remains the preserve of the family courts, unless a defendant breaches the order.

It is a modest, and probably welcome, development.

How much difference it will make to victims of domestic abuse remains to be seen.

Much will depend on the response of the police and the judiciary.

Parental responsibility for unmarried fathers

With effect from 1 December 2003 - we were told on or about 3 December - fathers not married to the mothers of their children will have parental responsibility for the children, provided the children are registered or re-registered (Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Commencement No 4) Order 2003/3079 Art 2(2)).

This brings into effect the welcome change on automatic parental responsibility for these parents under section 111 of the Act.

Designated authority: child placed with extended family

Re H (Care order: Appropriate local authority) (2003) Times 26 November, CA

Re H represents one of these turf wars between local authorities - which set of council tax payers is to pay for a child in care?

Children Act 1989 section 23(6) places a duty on the authority looking after the child to 'make arrangements to enable him to live with...

a relative, friend or other person connected with him'.

Oxford had an interim care order and arranged for the child to live with his grandparents in Norfolk.

When made final, the care order named Norfolk, where the grandparents lived, as the designated authority.

Norfolk asked the court to ignore, for designation purposes, while the child was provided with accommodation 'by or on behalf' of Oxford: the grandparents, for this purpose, said Norfolk.

No said the Court of Appeal.

Oxford had complied with its duty under section 23(6); and the judge had been right to designate Norfolk.

By David Burrows, David Burrows, Bristol