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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: C City Council v SH, RT and JT

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : c-city-council-v-sh-rt-and-jt
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 29, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88115

(Family Division; His Honour Judge Fletcher; 29 September 2006)

The grandparents were not only unaware of the child's existence, but were also unaware of the 3-year relationship between the mother and the father; the father was 30 years older than the mother, and some 10 years older than the maternal grandfather. The mother feared a complete breakdown in her relationship with the maternal grandparents were the existence of the child to be exposed.

The court ruled that there was no family life between the child and any member of the extended family, particularly the grandparents. The relevant factors were: the secret nature of the relationship between the parents; the reasonableness of the mother's fear that her relationship with the maternal grandparents was in jeapordy; the relatively distant and fragile nature of the existing family relationships; and the risk that a placement with the maternal grandparents would expose the child to ongoing relationship problems. The potential for development of a family life if the child were to be cared for within the extended family was very doubtful and likely to lead to disruption of existing family relationships. The grandparents were not relevant relatives in relation to whom the local authority had a duty to disclose the plans for the child, within s 22(5)(d) of the Children Act 1989.

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