Clause 16 (Hansard, 27 May 1970)

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 16, line 14, leave out from applicant ") ' to against ' in line 15.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Rogers)
I suggest that we discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 36, in page 17, line 32, after child ', insert of the family '.

§ The Solicitor-General
Yes, Mr. Rogers.
These are linked, drafting Amendments, which are intended to clarify the wording of subsection (1) and (4). In its present form subsection (1) applies where certain proceedings are brought by a person either on his own behalf or on behalf of a child against any other person. The first of the Amendments would omit the words either on his own behalf or on behalf of a child 1961 because they are capable of being misinterpreted.
Subsections (1) and (4) are the only places in the Bill which refer to a child without any qualification, such as " child of the family ". It might therefore not be clear at first sight just what is meant by " child " here; nor does the definition of " child " in Clause 26(1) help. It has been suggested that the words that the first Amendment would omit could be construed as being a reference to a situation in which one of the parties was not of full age and somebody was having to bring or defend proceedings on his or her behalf as next friend or guardianad litem
That is not what is intended. Subsection (1) is meant to apply in a situation where there is an attempt to defeat an application for financial provision for a child of the family just as it does where there is an attempt to defeat an application for financial provision for one of the spouses.