Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
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....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

SPECIFIC ISSUE ORDERS: Re L (Identity of Birth Father) [2008] EWCA Civ 1388

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : re-l-identity-of-birth-father-2008-ewca-civ-1388
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 14, 2009, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88805

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Lawrence Collins and Goldring LJJ; 13 November 2008)

The father had not seen the child since the child was 2 months old; the child, who suffered from ADHD and possibly Asperger's, was now 15 years old. The father sought contact with the child, who had been brought up to believe that his stepfather was his biological parent. The court refused contact, but the issue arose as to when the child should be informed of his true paternity. The mother wished to wait until the end of the next academic year; the alternative was to tell the child as soon as possible. For unexplained reasons, the mother did not want the child's psychiatrist to become involved, therefore a different child psychiatrist was appointed as a joint expert.He provided a paper-based assessment that led the judge to order the mother to inform the child about his true paternity before the start of the new academic year. The mother appealed.

Although none of mother's grounds of appeal justified allowing the appeal, the court had a fundamental misgiving concerning the exclusion of the evidence of the child's psychiatrist. The welfare decision had been taken on incomplete evidence, without the most crucial source of evidence. The mother's wishes had denied the court of a contribution that was, at minimum, highly relevant and potentially decisive. The child's psychiatrist should investigate and produce an evaluation for consideration by the court below.

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