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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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