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
Authors

ADOPTION: Re P (Adoption: Unmarried Couple) [2008] UKHL 38, [2008] The Times June 23

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
(House of Lords; Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Mance; 18 June 2008)
Slug : re-p-adoption-unmarried-couple-2008-ukhl-38-2008-the-times-june-23
Meta Title : ADOPTION: Re P (Adoption: Unmarried Couple) [2008] UKHL 38, [2008] The Times June 23
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 25, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86717

(House of Lords; Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Mance; 18 June 2008)

Northern Ireland regulations preventing the consideration of an unmarried couple as potential adoptive parents breached the couple's right to respect for family life under European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8. If it were rational to adopt a 'bright line rule' to determine what class of people should adopt children, there would be much to be said for identifying married people as the best people to adopt children. However, such a 'bright line rule' was quite irrational, because the law required the interests of each child to be examined on a case-by-case basis. The fact that a couple did not wish to undertake the obligations of marriage was a factor to be considered by the court in assessing the likely stability of their relationship and its impact upon the long term welfare of the child, but this could not rationally be elevated into an irrebuttable presumption of unsuitability.

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