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
MA and TA
Alexandra Tribe, Managing Partner, Expatriate LawSiddique Patel, Partner, Gunner CookeSiddique Patel, has published in the International Family Law Journal regarding a recently reported case involving...
Over 100,000 sign petition calling for shift in pro-contact culture to prioritize child safety
Leading domestic abuse organisation Women’s Aid and Survivor Ambassador Claire Throssell MBE, delivered a petition calling for the Government to prioritise the safety of children by ending unsafe...
New Ofsted data shows number of foster carers in England declining for third year running
New figures show the number of people choosing to foster in England is declining for the third year running, with six per cent fewer fostering households compared to 2021. The 2024 Fostering in...
The Thought Leader: time now to rethink
equality – will the future of family law
reflect the change in our politics?
Simon Bruce, Dawson Cornwell LLPThere is a switch on the dashboard of my car which I can press in order to reach a steady speed on the motorway. With no deviation, hesitation or variation.It’s very...
Re A: Post-adoption contact order: indicative of a new approach?
Laura Williams, Garden Court Chambers, Family Law TeamThe case of Re A, decided in July 2024, is a rare and possibly unique example of the Family Court making an order for post-adoption contact...
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