Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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 articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: JM v The United Kingdom (App No 37060/06)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : ECHR1544
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 22, 2010, 10:05 AM
Article ID : 92205

(European Court of Human Rights; 28 September 2010)

The children were resident with the father, although the children spent two-and-half days a week with the mother. The mother was in a stable lesbian relationship, in a house purchased with her partner as joint tenants. The mother was required to contribute to the cost of the children's upbringing. The assessment of the mother's housing costs did not take into account her relationship, although would have done if she had been cohabiting with a man. The mother challenged the assessment, in part on the basis that it did not make full allowance for her housing costs. The appeals tribunal allowed the mother's appeal on the basis that it was appropriate to compare the mother's situation to that of an individual in a heterosexual relationship. The Child Support Commissioner upheld the tribunal decision, seeing no reason in context of child support legislation to distinguish between families according to the sexual orientation of the parents. The Court of Appeal upheld subsequently that decision. However, the House of Lords allowed the Secretary of State's further appeal.

Held, there had been a violation of Art 14 ECHR in conjunction with Art 1 of Protocol No 1. It was not readily apparent why mother's housing costs should have been taken into account differently than would have been the case had she formed a relationship with a man.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

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