Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
Drug, Alcohol and DNA testing in Non-Court Dispute Resolution
***SPONSORED CONTENT***Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the role that Drug, Alcohol and DNA testing can play in Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR)....
Blackburne House receives £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs Giving Back campaign
***SPONSORED CONTENT***Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs, has made a £500 donation to Blackburne House in Liverpool as part of its Giving Back campaign. For every testing...
What are the intended and unintended consequences of the SiHIS pilot and report?
Jo Delahunty KC, Barrister, 4PBJames Holmes, Barrister, Garden Court ChambersOver six months into the Department for Education’s Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) pilot, its impact...
Disability as a section 25 factor
Naomh Gallagher, St John’s BuildingsDespite disability being a Section 25 factor in its own right, there is a dearth of resources specifically addressing the same. Often rolled into earning capacity,...
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 shortlist announced
The shortlist for the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 has been announced.The LexisNexis Legal Awards will be held at the Park Plaza Riverbank on 13 March 2025. You can book your table here.The shortlist...
View all articles
Authors

Shared Residence

Sep 29, 2018, 17:23 PM
Title : Shared Residence
Slug : shared-residence
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Apr 18, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86321

In Re G (Residence: Same Sex Partners) [2005] 2 FLR 957, the parties had cohabited in a same-sex relationship for 8 years, during which time the respondent gave birth to two children conceived by artificial insemination by donor. Following the end of the parties' relationship, the appellant obtained leave to apply for a shared residence order in respect of the younger child. The respondent made plans towards relocating with the children and her new partner to another part of the country. She did not reveal those plans until the second day of the adjourned hearing. The judge refused the application for a joint residence order, but made a series of specific issue orders designed to ensure that the appellant retained a significant role in the lives of the children.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted the joint residence order saying that the appellant was entitled to succeed on one or more of the grounds of appeal. Of particular relevance was the judge's failure to give sufficient importance to the fact that the respondent's plans appeared to have been designed to marginalise the appellant from the children's lives. The biological mother then defied the orders by secretly taking the children to a new home in Cornwall. When they were found, Bracewell J granted a residence order in respect of the children to her former partner. That was confirmed in April 2006 by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Thorpe said that the upbringing of the children had been shared and they would not distinguish between one woman and the other on the grounds of biological relationship. See May [2006] Fam Law 408 for the full news article.

Click here if you subscribe to the Family Law journal online.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from