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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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