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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
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