1.
Doyle, Roddy. The woman who walked into doors. London: Jonathan Cape; 1996.
2.
Harris-Short S, Miles J, George RH. Family law: text, cases, and materials. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
3.
Wallbank JA, Herring J, editors. Vulnerabilities, care and family law [Internet]. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kentuk/detail.action?docID=1573305
4.
Eekelaar J, Maclean M. Family justice: the work of family judges in uncertain times [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2013. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781782251583
5.
Professor Alison Diduck. Justice by ADR in private family matters: is it fair and is it possible? 2014;44(5):581–756. Available from: http://onlineservices.jordanpublishing.co.uk.chain.kent.ac.uk/web/pub.xql?c=t&action=home&pub=FAMILYpa&lang=en#addHistory=true&filename=Family_FLJONLINE_FLJ_2014_05_12.dita.xml&docid=Family_FLJONLINE_FLJ_2014_05_12&inner_id=&tid=&query=&scope=&resource=&toc=false&eventType=lcContent.loadDocFamily_FLJONLINE_FLJ_2014_05_12
6.
Eekelaar J. "Not of the Highest Importance”: Family justice under threat. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2011 Dec;33(4):311–7.
7.
Diduck A. What is Family Law For? Current Legal Problems. 2011 Jan 1;64(1):287–314.
8.
Wallbank JA, Herring J, editors. Vulnerabilities, care and family law [Internet]. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kentuk/detail.action?docID=1573305
9.
Dewar J. The Normal Chaos of Family Law. Modern Law Review. 1998 Jul;61(4):467–85.
10.
Diduck, Alison. Justice by ADR in private family matters: is it fair and is it possible. Available from: http://library.kent.ac.uk/cgi-bin/resources.cgi?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1556285990/
11.
Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law. Delivering family justice in the 21st century [Internet]. Maclean M, Eekelaar J, Bastard B, editors. Vol. Onati international series in law and society. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2015. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781782259701
12.
Hunter R. Doing violence to family law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2011 Dec;33(4):343–59.
13.
Barker N. Civil Partnerships: An Alternative to Marriage? An Analysis of the Application in Ferguson and Others v United Kingdom. Family law. 2012;42(5):548–51.
14.
Gaffney-Rhys R. Same-Sex Marriage But Not Mixed-Sex Partnerships: Should the Civil Partnership Act 2004 be extended to opposite-sex couples? Child and family law quarterly. 2014;26(2):173–95.
15.
Hunter RC, McGlynn C, Rackley E. Feminist judgments: from theory to practice [Internet]. Oxford: Hart; 2010. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781847316011
16.
Probert R. When are we married? Void, non-existent and presumed marriages. Legal Studies. 2002 Sep;22(3):398–419.
17.
Probert R. The Evolving Concept of Non-Marriage. Child and family law quarterly. 2013;25(3):314–35.
18.
Barker N, Monk D, editors. From civil partnerships to same-sex marriage: interdisciplinary reflections. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2015.
19.
Auchmuty R. From civil partnerships to same-sex marriage: interdisciplinary reflections [Internet]. Barker N, Monk D, editors. Oxfordshire, [England]: Routledge; 2015. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kentuk/detail.action?docID=2028271
20.
Law Commission. Getting Married: A Scoping Paper [Internet]. Available from: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Getting_Married_scoping_paper.pdf
21.
Fowler E. A Queer Critique on the Polygamy Debate in Canada: Law, Culture, and Diversity. Dalhousie journal of legal studies [Internet]. 2012;21:93–125. Available from: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=44KEN_SFX_DS110985822460002&indx=1&recIds=44KEN_SFX_DS110985822460002&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%2844KEN_Voyager%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_SFX_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_CALM_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_MODES_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_EPR_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844MDH_MW%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&mode=Basic&vid=44KEN_VU1&srt=rank&tab=default_tab&vl(freeText0)=Dalhousie%20Journal%20of%20Legal%20Studies&dum=true&dstmp=1485871092866
22.
Case in Point: Is Consummation a Legal Oddity? [Internet]. Available from: https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/blog/case-point-consummation-legal-oddity
23.
Idriss MM. Forced Marriages - the Need for Criminalisation? Criminal law review. 2015;9:687–703.
24.
Camplin H, Scott E. "We Are a Group of Feminist Lawyers Doing What We Can”: An Interview with Emma Scott, Director of Rights of Women. Feminist Legal Studies. 2015 Nov;23(3):319–28.
25.
Treloar R. High Conflict Post-Separation Disputes Involving Family Violence in a Neoliberal Context: British Columbia, Canada. Child and family law quarterly. 2016;28(2):111–32.
26.
Burton M. Emergency Barring Orders in Domestic Violence Cases: What can England and Wales learn from other European countries? Child and family law quarterly. 2015;27(1):25–42.
27.
McCarthy M, Hunt S. ‘I Know it was Every Week, but I Can’t be Sure if it was Every Day: Domestic Violence and Women with Learning Disabilities. Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities. 2015;29.
28.
Gaffney-Rhys R. The Criminalisation of Forced Marriage in England and Wales: One Year On. Family law. 2015;45(11):1378–84.
29.
Gill AK, Anitha S. Forced marriage: introducing a social justice and human rights perspective [Internet]. London: Zed; 2011. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781848134645
30.
Enright M. Choice, Culture and the Politics of Belonging: The Emerging Law of Forced and Arranged Marriage. Modern Law Review. 2009 May;72(3):331–59.
31.
Gill A, Anitha S. The illusion of protection? An analysis of forced marriage legislation and policy in the UK. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2009 Sep;31(3):257–69.
32.
Razack SH. Imperilled Muslim Women, Dangerous Muslim Men and Civilised Europeans: Legal and Social Responses to Forced Marriages. Feminist Legal Studies. 2004;12(2):129–74.
33.
Rosier A. No-Fault Divorce: Where Next? Family law. 2015;45(12).
34.
Herring J, Probert R, Gilmore S. Great debates in family law. Second edition. Vol. Palgrave great debates in law. London: Palgrave; 2015.
35.
Nash E, Parker A. No Fault Divorce: The Australian Experience. Family law. 2016;46(3).
36.
Deech R. ‘What’s a Woman Worth? Family law. 2009;1140–5.
37.
What’s the Deal? Marital Property Agreements, Past Present and Future [Internet]. Available from: https://www.iafl.com/cms_media/files/marital_property_agreements_past_present_and_future_baroness_hale.pdf?static=1
38.
Thompson S. Levelling the Prenuptial Playing Field: Is Independent Legal Advice the Answer? International Family Law [Internet]. 2011;4:327–31. Available from: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=44KEN_SFX_DS991042728070824&indx=1&recIds=44KEN_SFX_DS991042728070824&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%2844KEN_Voyager%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_SFX_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_CALM_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_MODES_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_EPR_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844MDH_MW%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&mode=Basic&vid=44KEN_VU1&srt=rank&tab=default_tab&vl(freeText0)=International%20Family%20Law&dum=true&dstmp=1485872916343
39.
Altman S. A Theory of Child Support. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2003 Aug 1;17(2):173–210.
40.
Altman S. A Theory of Child Support. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2003 Aug 1;17(2):173–210.
41.
What’s the Deal? Marital Property Agreements, Past Present and Future [Internet]. Available from: https://www.iafl.com/cms_media/files/marital_property_agreements_past_present_and_future_baroness_hale.pdf?static=1
42.
Bill 2014-15, second reading and committee stage debates: [Internet]. Available from: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/divorcefinancialprovisionbill/stages.html
43.
Ruth Deech: A Clean Break | Big Issue [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bigissue.com/features/4369/ruth-deech-a-clean-break
44.
Deech R. ‘What’s a Woman Worth? Family law. 2009;1140–5.
45.
Herring J, Harris P, George R. Ante-Nuptial Agreements: Fairness, Equality and Presumptions. Law quarterly review. 2011;127.
46.
Miles J, Mody P, Probert R, editors. Marriage rites and rights [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2015. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781782259657
47.
Hale B. Equality and autonomy in family law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2011 Mar;33(1):3–14.
48.
MACLEAN M, EEKELAAR J. CHILD SUPPORT: THE BRITISH SOLUTION. ‘International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family’. 1993;7(2):205–29.
49.
Skinner C. Child Maintenance Reforms: Understanding Fathers’ Expressive Agency and the Power of Reciprocity. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2013 Aug 1;27(2):242–65.
50.
Ellman IM, Mckay S, Miles J, Bryson C. Child Support Judgments: Comparing Public Policy to the Public’s Policy. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2014 Dec 1;28(3):274–301.
51.
Nutt T. "A Fresh Start for Child Maintenance”? Examining Recent Child Support Policy in Long-Term Historical Perspective. Journal of social security law [Internet]. 2007;14(3):118–30. Available from: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=44KEN_SFX_DS110978984082391&indx=1&recIds=44KEN_SFX_DS110978984082391&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%2844KEN_Voyager%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_SFX_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_CALM_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_MODES_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_EPR_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844MDH_MW%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&mode=Basic&vid=44KEN_VU1&srt=rank&tab=default_tab&vl(freeText0)=Journal%20of%20Social%20Security%20Law&dum=true&dstmp=1485873499493
52.
Welstead M. ‘The Surrogacy Market’. Family law. 2016;
53.
Elsworth M, Gamble N. Are Contracts and Pre-Birth Orders the Way Forward for UK Surrogacy? International Family Law [Internet]. 2015;2. Available from: http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=44KEN_SFX_DS991042728070824&indx=1&recIds=44KEN_SFX_DS991042728070824&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%2844KEN_Voyager%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_SFX_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_CALM_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_MODES_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844KEN_EPR_DS%29%2Cscope%3A%2844MDH_MW%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&mode=Basic&vid=44KEN_VU1&srt=rank&tab=default_tab&vl(freeText0)=%20International%20Family%20Law&dum=true&dstmp=1485873723028
54.
Yeatman L. ‘Lesbian co-parents: still not real mothers’. Family law. 2013;43(12):1581–7.
55.
Wood C. The Pitfalls of Assisted Reproduction: When is a parent a legal parent? Family law. 2016;October:1242–6.
56.
Fenton-Glynn C. ‘The Regulation and Recognition of Surrogacy under English Law: An Overview of the Case-Law. Child and family law quarterly. 2015;83.
57.
Surrogacy in the UK: Myth Busting and Reform: Report of the Surrogacy UK Working Group on Surrogacy Law Reform [Internet]. Available from: https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/research/projects/current/surrogacy/Surrogacy%20in%20the%20UK%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
58.
Julie Wallbank. Channelling the messiness of diverse family lives: resisting the calls to order and de-centring the hetero-normative family. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law [Internet]. 32(4):353–68. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/09649069.2010.539355
59.
Probert R, Gilmore S, Herring J. Responsible parents and parental responsibility. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2009.
60.
Herring J, Foster C. Welfare means relationality, virtue and altruism. Legal Studies. 2012 Sep;32(3):480–98.
61.
Gilmore S. Withdrawal of Parental Responsibility: Lost Authority and a Lost Opportunity. The Modern Law Review. 2015 Nov;78(6):1042–56.
62.
Probert R, Gilmore S, Herring J. Responsible parents and parental responsibility. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2009.
63.
Reece H. The Paramountcy Principle: Consensus or Construct? Current Legal Problems. 1996 Jan 1;49(1):267–304.
64.
Hunter R. Close Encounters of a Judicial Kind: "Hearing” Children’s "Voices” in Family Law Proceedings. Child and family law quarterly. 2007;19.
65.
Herring J. The welfare principle and the children act: presumably it’s about welfare? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2014 Jan 2;36(1):14–25.
66.
Reece H. ‘Parental Responsibility as Therapy. Family law. 2009;
67.
Barnett A. ‘Contact at all costs? Domestic violence and children’s welfare’. Child and family law quarterly. 2014;26(4).
68.
Yeatman L. ‘Lesbian co-parents: still not real mothers’. Family law. 2013;43(12):1581–7.
69.
Hale B. New families and the welfare of children. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2014 Jan 2;36(1):26–35.
70.
‘The rise and fall of presumptions surrounding the welfare principle [Internet]. Available from: http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/family/news_and_comment/Herring-MayFLJ2013-553#.WJCqP1OLS70
71.
Bremner P. Lesbian parents and biological fathers – leave to apply for contact. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2014 Jan 2;36(1):79–81.
72.
Kaganas F. ‘A Presumption That Involvement of Both Parents Is Best: Deciphering Law’s Messages. Child and family law quarterly. 2013;25.
73.
Hunter RC, McGlynn C, Rackley E. Feminist judgments: from theory to practice [Internet]. Oxford: Hart; 2010. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781847316011
74.
Bridgeman J, Keating HM, Lind C, editors. Regulating family responsibilities. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2016.
75.
Rhoades H. Legislating to promote children’s welfare and the quest for certainty. Child and family law quarterly. 2012;24(2).
76.
Munby J. ‘the14th View from the President’s Chambers: care cases: settlement conferences and the tandem model’. Family law. 2016;46(9).
77.
Sloan B. LOVING BUT POTENTIALLY HARMFUL PARENTS IN THE SUPREME COURT. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2014 Mar;73(01):28–31.
78.
Holt K, Kelly N. At a crossroads: to issue or not to issue care proceedings. Family law. 2016;Dec:1450–5.
79.
Slater L. ’It’s voluntary! Accommodation under s.20 of the Children Act 1989. Family law. 2016;Sept:1141–6.
80.
Delahunty J, Barnes C. Radicalisation cases in the family courts: Part 1: An introduction. Family law. 2016;Feb.
81.
Delahunty J, Barnes C. Radicalisation cases in the family courts: Part 2: Practicalities and pitfalls’. Family law. 2016;March.
82.
Delahunty J, Barnes C. ‘Radicalisation cases in the family courts: Part 3: Threshold’. Family law. 2016;June.
83.
Fox Harding LM. The Children Act 1989 in context: Four perspectives in Child Care Law and Policy (II). Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 1991 Jul;13(4):285–302.
84.
Wallbank JA, Herring J, editors. Vulnerabilities, care and family law [Internet]. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2014. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kentuk/detail.action?docID=1573305
85.
Eekelaar J, Maclean M. Family justice: the work of family judges in uncertain times [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2013. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=KentUniv&isbn=9781782251583
86.
Wellbourne P. Safeguarding Children on the Edge of Care: Policy for Keeping Children Safe after the Review of the Child Care Proceedings System, Care Matters and the Carter Review of Legal Aid. Child and family law quarterly. 2008;20.
87.
Proudman C, Trevena F. ‘Setting parents up to fail: punishing hopeless parents is integral to care proceedings. Family law. 2012;Aug.
88.
Doughty J. Myths and Misunderstanding in Adoption Law and Policy. Child and family law quarterly. 2015;27.
89.
Phillimore S. Contesting the making of an adoption order: Re W (A child). Family law. 2016;Sept:1068–72.
90.
Bainham A. THE PECULIAR FINALITY OF ADOPTION. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2009 Jul;68(02).
91.
McFarlane A. Nothing Else Will Do. Family law. 2016;Dec:1403–12.
92.
Harwin J. Considering the case for parity in policy and practice between adoption and special guardianship: findings from a population wide study. Family law. 2016;Feb.
93.
Phillimore S. Making an Adoption Order: What is the Test? Family law. 2016;46:1021–4.
94.
Bainham A. PERMANENCE FOR CHILDREN: SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP OR ADOPTION? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2007 Nov;66(03).
95.
Bainham A. THE PECULIAR FINALITY OF ADOPTION. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2009 Jul;68(02).
96.
Holt K, Kelly N. When adoption without parental consent breaches human rights: implications of [2013] EWCA Civ 963 on decision making and permanency planning for children. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2015 Apr 3;37(2):228–40.
97.
Sloan B. POST-ADOPTION CONTACT REFORM: COMPOUNDING THE STATE-ORDERED TERMINATION OF PARENTHOOD? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2014 Jul;73(02):378–404.
98.
Marshall J. CONCEALED BIRTHS, ADOPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: BEING WARY OF SEEKING TO OPEN WINDOWS INTO PEOPLE’S SOULS. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2012 Jul;71(02):325–54.
