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 R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles

PATERNITY: Re J (Paternity: Welfare of Child) [2006] EWHC 2837 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : re-j-paternity-welfare-of-child-2006-ewhc-2837-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 21, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88949

(Family Division; Sumner J; 10 November 2006)

The child, aged 10, believed that the mother's long-term partner was his father. The father, whose paternity had been established by DNA tests, had begun proceedings seeking contact with the child, but had disappeared having apparently abandoned the proceedings. The father's solicitors had come off the record, and the court had made a s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 order to prevent the father from re-opening the case without permission, but the court still had to consider the issue of the child's best interests in relation to the revelation of true paternity.

There were situations in which the seriousness of an issue raised in relation to a child and its impact on the child's welfare would require the court to act of its own motion, appointing a Guardian for the child, and hearing further argument. The court had considered that option, but, presuming that there was jurisdiction to direct the mother to inform the child of his true paternity, had resolved not to pursue that route, on the understanding that the mother would tell the child when he was 16, or earlier if possible.

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