Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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