Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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