Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
A rare order for a child in utero
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow Harvard Law School; Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn 2023, Kettering NHS Trust applied for an anticipatory declaration for a child...
Stranded spouses: an overview
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4PB, author of A Practical Guide to Stranded Spouses in Family Law ProceedingsThis article provides an overview of the issues that often arise in cases...
View all articles
Authors

Rowing Back from Re G? Natural Parents in the Supreme Court

Sep 29, 2018, 17:52 PM
Title : Rowing Back from Re G? Natural Parents in the Supreme Court
Slug : rowing-back-from-re-g-natural-parents-in-the-supreme-court
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Mar 25, 2010, 11:18 AM
Article ID : 90909

ANDREW BAINHAM, Fellow of Christ's College Cambridge

In Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5, [2010] 1 FLR (forthcoming) the new Supreme Court had its first opportunity to consider the claims of natural parents as against others in disputes over the welfare of a child. In this case the argument concerned the residence of a boy ‘Harry' approaching 4 years old at the time of the Supreme Court's decision. Lord Kerr, delivering the single judgement of the Court, said that the speech of Baroness Hale of Richmond in Re G (Children) [2006] UKHL 43, [2006] 2 FLR 629 might have been the final word on the subject but that ‘misunderstandings about the true import of that decision and the applicable principles persist.'

To read the rest of this article, see April [2010] Family Law journal. To log on to Family Law journal Online or to request a free trial click here.

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