Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

PATERNITY:Re S (Declaration of Parentage) [2012] EWCA Civ 1160

Sep 29, 2018, 18:22 PM
Slug : 2012ewcaciv1160
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 31, 2012, 02:42 AM
Article ID : 99857

(Court of Appeal, Pill, Rimer, Black LJJ, 23 August 2012)

The 9-year-old's parents were never married, the father's name was not on birth certificate but the child knew who his father was. The father was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the mother of a former partner. The father applied for contact and for a declaration of paternity under s 55 of the Family Law Act 1986.

The judge refused to make the declaration on the grounds that it was not in the child's nor the public interest. The father appealed.

Appeal allowed. The judge had conflated s 55A and s 58 of the Act and concentrated on the best interests of the child but had failed to give full weight to the public interest aspect.

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