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...
Latest articles
Book Review on Cohabitation: Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)
It is 27 years since Denzil Lush first produced this book, some subsequent editions of which one has had the pleasure of reviewing for Family Law, and which, for some reason, does not figure as much...
Re AC (A Child) [2020] EWFC 90
(Family Court, Peel J, 11 December 2020)Private Law Children – s 8, Children Act 1989 – Inheritance - Jurisdiction Whether court had jurisdiction to authorise the mother to accept the...
Second reading in the House of Lords of the Domestic Abuse Bill
The Domestic Abuse Bill received its second reading in the House of Lords on 5 January 2021. The committee stage, where the bill will be scrutinised line-by-line, does not yet have a confirmed date....
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....
How the care system should change - a child’s perspective
The Children’s Commissioner has published a new investigation into how children affected by the care system would like the current system to change ahead of the government’s planned...
View all articles

Principle or pragmatism? Lesbian parenting, shared residence and parental responsibility after Re G (Residence: Same-Sex Partner) [2006] CFLQ 125

Sep 29, 2018, 17:53 PM
Slug : principle-or-pragmatism-lesbian-parenting-shared-residence-and-parental-responsibility-after-re-g-residence-same-sex-partner-2006-cflq-125
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 20, 2011, 04:43 AM
Article ID : 95819

In Re G (Residence: Same-Sex Partner) the Court of Appeal was called upon to determine the level of involvement and status to which a lesbian co-parent was entitled following her separation from the biological mother of children they had raised together. The decision represents something of a landmark for same-sex parents. In his judgment, Thorpe LJ took a principled approach designed to assimilate the appellant's position, insofar as it was possible to do so, with that of a biological father in similar circumstances. In stark (and welcome) contrast to previous lesbian parenting cases, it is difficult not to notice that the word 'lesbian' does not feature once in the judgment. Whereas previously a mother's lesbianism has been 'a factor to be considered' in cases arising under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989, the exclusion of lesbianism as a relevant factor in Re G indicates that the courts are now prepared to countenance the reality of lesbians as parents as a matter of principle, not merely on an ad hoc basis, as has hitherto been the case. In that sense it could be argued that, with his Re G judgment, Thorpe LJ has ushered in a new era of acceptance for same-sex parents, one in which their status as parents is duly recognised and reflected in law. However, it is argued here that the judgment raises several issues that may practically limit the utility of Re G as a precedent in future, similar cases. Indirectly, these issues champion the need for a new legal understanding and definition of parenthood. Whilst the judgment heralds a new era in transcending the prejudice and presumptions that have tainted previous lesbian parenting judgments, it also highlights the need for further reform.

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