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
Vulnerable clients: who are they, how do we identify them, how do we manage them
Sheena Cassidy Hope, Mischon de ReyaKelly Gerrard, Payne Hicks BeachThose working in the Family Justice system frequently encounter clients who present as vulnerable. Sheena Cassidy Hope and Kelly...
The impact of AI on family law practice
Graeme Fraser, William SturgesIn this article, I examine the impact of AI, including its uses; the challenges and risks posed by its increased adoption in family law; and the extent to which...
Family Law Awards 2024: book your table now!
The Family Law Awards 2024 shortlist has been released, celebrating the exceptional talent and achievements within the family law community. This prestigious event will once again bring together the...
Narcissism in family law – what you need to know and why
Karin Walker, KGW Family LawNarcissism has increasingly been used as a term to describe anyone who demonstrates difficult or undesirable behaviour. In reality it is a very specific personality...
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025: entries open with four new categories announced
The LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 are officially open for entries, offering a platform to celebrate the very best of the UK’s legal talent. This year’s awards will feature four exciting new...
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