Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from