ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the tensions created by the different requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the pre-existing paramountcy principle, and how the UK courts are dealing with these competing perspectives on deciding family law cases. It explores these different approaches and the possible reasons behind the current reluctance or inability of the UK courts to fully embrace the approach of the ECHR. The chapter argues that it is time for the UK courts to abandon the paramountcy principle as it is currently conceived, and instead, adopt a new model of rights-based judicial reasoning in the context of disputes over children. UK courts could thus choose to reinterpret "paramount" as meaning either "primary" or "pre-eminent" which is arguably, as the discussion in the chapter demonstrates, more in line with the European Court's view on where the welfare of the child should be placed in the reasoning process.
