Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2025
'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
LexisNexis Family Law Awards 2025: entries now open – as well as sponsorship opportunities too!
Celebrating the excellence, resilience, and humanity at the heart of family law.The LexisNexis Family Law Awards 2025 are officially open for entries – and with them, a unique opportunity for...
Pregnant children and their best interests
Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University Mrs Justice Arbuthnot held that AZ, an 11 year old, lacked Gillick competence to decide the future of her pregnancy. Her parents...
No longer ‘contact at all costs’: a new approach from Cafcass? Implications for private law cases
Tom Doyle, Park Square BarristersMost family lawyers will undoubtedly now be aware of the new domestic abuse practice policy published by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service...
Good practice: creating an accessible system for people with physical limitations: Part 1
Reagan Persaud, Spire BarristersFamily law is an arena for everyone. Every kind of person has the potential to frequent these courts hoping for justice. It is therefore common place for users who have...
‘Do they have to know about that?’ Human rights considerations and disclosure
Simon Johnson, Pump Court ChambersThis article examines the difficult and often emotive issue of disclosure of highly personal information about one party to other parties within public law...
View all articles
Authors

Shared Residence

Sep 29, 2018, 17:23 PM
Title : Shared Residence
Slug : shared-residence
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Apr 18, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86321

In Re G (Residence: Same Sex Partners) [2005] 2 FLR 957, the parties had cohabited in a same-sex relationship for 8 years, during which time the respondent gave birth to two children conceived by artificial insemination by donor. Following the end of the parties' relationship, the appellant obtained leave to apply for a shared residence order in respect of the younger child. The respondent made plans towards relocating with the children and her new partner to another part of the country. She did not reveal those plans until the second day of the adjourned hearing. The judge refused the application for a joint residence order, but made a series of specific issue orders designed to ensure that the appellant retained a significant role in the lives of the children.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted the joint residence order saying that the appellant was entitled to succeed on one or more of the grounds of appeal. Of particular relevance was the judge's failure to give sufficient importance to the fact that the respondent's plans appeared to have been designed to marginalise the appellant from the children's lives. The biological mother then defied the orders by secretly taking the children to a new home in Cornwall. When they were found, Bracewell J granted a residence order in respect of the children to her former partner. That was confirmed in April 2006 by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Thorpe said that the upbringing of the children had been shared and they would not distinguish between one woman and the other on the grounds of biological relationship. See May [2006] Fam Law 408 for the full news article.

Click here if you subscribe to the Family Law journal online.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles