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
Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
(Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Macur, Baker, Arnold LJJ, 01 April 2021)Public Law Children – Fact finding – Lucas Direction – Sexual abuse allegations – Judge found...
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...
HMCTS launches updated online court and tribunal finder
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has launched an updated version of its online court and tribunal finder tool to help those in search of a court, its location, opening times, disabled access...
NFJO publishes report on supervision orders in care proceedings
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) has published a report following its survey into the use of supervision orders in care proceedings. The survey focused on...
Villiers - the Anglo/Scottish perspective
Heard by the Supreme Court in December 2019, with its judgment last July, this case attracted much interest (or “lurid publicity” as per Mr Justice Mostyn in his judgement this week) as it...
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