Family Law Cases
- Legal constructions of the 'family'
- Institutions of Marriage and Civil Partnerships
- Law of Marriage and Civil Partnership
- Domestic Abuse
- Legal construction of the 'child'
- Grandparents
- Adoption and Special Guardianship
- Extra Cases
Legal constructions of the 'family'
Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001]
1. Facts: • Martin Fitzpatrick lived with his same-sex partner, John Thompson, for 18 years in a rented property where the tenancy was solely in Thompson’s name. • After Thompson’s death, Fitzpatrick sought to inherit the tenancy under the provisions of the Rent Act 1977. • Schedule 1 of the Rent
Oscar MacDonald
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]
1. Facts: • Juan Godin-Mendoza (GM) sought to succeed to the tenancy of a flat he shared with his same-sex partner, who was the original tenant, after the partner’s death. • Under the Rent Act 1977, statutory tenancy could be passed to a surviving spouse or a person who lived with
Oscar MacDonald
Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy [2017]
Key Points: • Background: A couple, Paradiso and Campanelli, arranged for a surrogate mother to carry their child. However, Italian law does not recognise surrogacy or grant legal status to surrogate mothers as family members. • Legal Challenge: The couple faced legal obstacles in Italy due to the lack of legal recognition
Oscar MacDonald
Senchishak v Finland [2014]
1. Facts: • The applicant, a 72-year-old Russian woman, went to Finland on a tourist visa to stay with her daughter, who was her primary caregiver. • After her tourist visa expired, she was not granted a residence permit and was asked to leave Finland, but she refused, arguing that returning to
Oscar MacDonald
Burden v UK [2008]
1. Facts: • The applicants, two unmarried sisters aged 88 and 81, had lived together in a jointly owned house for several years. • Neither sister had ever married, and they were concerned about the inheritance tax liability that would arise if one of them died, potentially forcing the surviving sister to
Oscar MacDonald
Stubing v Germany [2012]
1. Facts: • The case involved a consensual sexual relationship between Patrick Stubing and his biological sister, who were raised separately and reunited as adults. • The siblings had four children together, two of whom were born with disabilities. • Patrick Stubing was convicted of incest under Section 173 of the German Criminal
Oscar MacDonald
R (Johns and Johns) v Derby City Council [2011]
1. Facts: • The case involved Eunice and Owen Johns, a devout Christian couple who sought to become foster parents in Derby, UK. • Their application was scrutinised due to their expressed views on homosexuality, which they believed to be inconsistent with their Christian faith. • The local authority raised concerns about the
Oscar MacDonald
Institutions of Marriage and Civil Partnerships
Crake & Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission [1982]
Key Points: • Legal Issue: The case concerned the criteria for determining whether two people are living together as a couple, particularly for the purposes of entitlement to supplementary benefits. • Guidelines Established by Woolf J: ◦ Members of the Same Household: The court considered whether the individuals were living together in a
Oscar MacDonald
Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866)
Key Points: • Lord Penzance’s Definition: ◦ The case is most famous for Lord Penzance’s definition of marriage, which is frequently cited in legal contexts. ◦ He described marriage as the “voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” ◦ This definition emphasised the Christian view
Oscar MacDonald
Radmacher v Granatino [2011]
Key Points: • Supreme Court’s Stance: ◦ The Supreme Court gave significant weight to pre-nuptial contracts, marking a shift towards allowing individuals more autonomy in determining the legal consequences of their relationships. • Baroness Hale’s Perspective: ◦ Marriage as a Contract: Baroness Hale highlighted that when marriage is viewed as a contract, the legal
Oscar MacDonald
Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie [2005]
Key Points: • Justice Albie Sachs: ◦ The case was significant in South Africa for advocating in favour of allowing same-sex marriages. Justice Albie Sachs emphasised that same-sex couples should not be treated as “biological oddities” or as “lapsed human beings who do not fit into normal society.” • Argument Against Same-Sex Marriages:
Oscar MacDonald
Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2006]
1. Facts: • Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, a same-sex couple, were legally married in Canada, where same-sex marriage was recognised. • Upon returning to the UK, they sought legal recognition of their marriage, arguing that the refusal to recognise it as a marriage in the UK breached their human rights. • The
Oscar MacDonald
R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development [2018]
1. Facts: • Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, an opposite-sex couple, objected to marriage on ideological grounds but sought legal recognition of their relationship through a civil partnership, which was at that time only available to same-sex couples in the UK. • They argued that the exclusion of opposite-sex couples from civil
Oscar MacDonald
Saucedo Gomez v Spain [1999]
1. Facts: • Gomez, who had been cohabiting with her partner for 18 years, was separated from him and sought financial claims similar to those available to married spouses under Spanish law. • At the time, Spanish law did not provide the same financial rights and protections to cohabiting partners as it
Oscar MacDonald
R (Siobhan McLaughlin) v Department for Work and Pensions [2018]
1. Facts: • Siobhan McLaughlin’s partner died, leaving her as the sole parent of their four children. They had not been married at the time of his death. • Under UK law, if McLaughlin had been married to her partner, she would have been entitled to the Widowed Parent’s Allowance,
Oscar MacDonald
Law of Marriage and Civil Partnership
Gereis v Yagoub [1997]
1. Facts: • The case involved a couple who underwent a marriage ceremony at the Coptic Orthodox Church but did not complete the required legal formalities to register their marriage officially. • Although they did not comply with the legal requirements, the couple followed the customary practices and rituals of a Christian
Oscar MacDonald
A-M v A-M [2002] and El Gamal [2011]
Key Points: • Islamic Ceremonies as Non-Marriages: ◦ In both A-M v A-M [2002] and El Gamal [2011], Islamic marriage ceremonies conducted in private flats were held to be non-marriages under English law. ◦ These cases emphasised that a marriage, to be legally recognised, must meet certain formal requirements. Private ceremonies without adherence
Oscar MacDonald
Gandhi v Patel [2002] and B v B [2012]
Key Points: • Hindu Ceremonies as Non-Marriages: ◦ In both Gandhi v Patel [2002] and B v B [2012], Hindu marriage ceremonies held in unconventional locations, such as a restaurant, were deemed non-marriages under English law. ◦ These judgments were based on the failure to meet the legal requirements for a valid marriage,
Oscar MacDonald
MA v JA [2012]
1. Facts: • The case involved a couple who underwent a marriage ceremony, but significant formalities required for legal recognition were not fully adhered to. • The couple had not completed all the necessary legal steps to register their marriage according to the statutory requirements, but they believed the ceremony to be
Oscar MacDonald
KC & Anor v City of Westminster Social & Community Services Department & Anor [2008]
1. Facts: • The case involved a marriage conducted over the telephone between a man with severe cognitive impairment and a woman in Bangladesh. • Due to the man’s significant impairment, he was unable to fully understand or consent to the marriage, which would typically render such a marriage voidable rather
Oscar MacDonald
Hudson v Leigh [2009]
1. Facts: • The case involved a couple where the wife wanted to marry in a Christian ceremony, but the husband did not share this desire. They decided to have a Christian ceremony in South Africa, agreeing that this would not create a legally recognised marriage. • Upon returning to London, they
Oscar MacDonald
Attorney General v Akhter [2020]
1. Facts: • The case involved a couple who underwent an Islamic marriage ceremony in 1998, fully aware that a civil marriage was necessary to create a legally valid marriage in the UK. • Despite planning to complete the required civil marriage, the couple did not follow through with it. They subsequently
Oscar MacDonald
Hirani v Hirani [1983]
Key Points: • Threat of Social Isolation: ◦ The court held that the threat of social isolation was sufficient to render a marriage voidable. This marked a significant departure from earlier, more restrictive interpretations of duress in marriage cases. • Focus on Effect: ◦ The case emphasised that the court should focus on the
Oscar MacDonald
Singh v Singh [1971]
Key Points: • Early Standard for Duress: ◦ In Singh v Singh, the court maintained that, for a marriage to be considered voidable due to duress, the threat needed to be severe, typically involving a threat to “life, limb, or liberty.” This standard set a high threshold for what constituted duress. • Narrow
Oscar MacDonald
H v H [1954] and NS v MI [2006]
Key Points: • Third-Party Threats: ◦ Both cases illustrate that threats leading to the invalidation of a marriage can originate from third parties, not necessarily from the spouse involved in the marriage. • H v H (1954): ◦ The court recognised that a threat from a third party, such as family members or associates,
Oscar MacDonald
Moss v Moss [1897]
Key Points: • Mistake Regarding Identity: ◦ The case established that for a marriage to be declared void based on mistake, the mistake must pertain to the identity of the other party rather than to their attributes or characteristics. • Details: ◦ In Moss v Moss, the petitioner sought to annul the marriage on
Oscar MacDonald
Militante v Ogunwomoju [1993]
Key Points: • Decree of Nullity Granted: ◦ The court granted a decree of nullity to the woman who discovered post-marriage that her spouse was an illegal immigrant and had lied about his identity. • Basis for Nullity: ◦ The marriage was annulled because the deception regarding the spouse’s identity was deemed a
Oscar MacDonald
C v C [1942]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ A New Zealand woman married a man whom she believed to be a famous boxer. This belief was incorrect. • Annulment Attempt: ◦ The woman sought to have the marriage annulled based on her mistaken belief about her husband’s identity. • Outcome: ◦ The court refused to annul the marriage.
Oscar MacDonald
Messina v Smith [1971]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case involved a dispute over the legal effects of a marriage where one party was mistaken about these effects. • Mistake in Focus: ◦ The party sought to annul the marriage based on a misunderstanding of its legal implications. • Outcome: ◦ The court determined that a mistake regarding
Oscar MacDonald
Valier v Valier [1925]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ One party mistakenly believed that the ceremony was an engagement rather than a marriage. • Mistake in Focus: ◦ The misunderstanding was about the nature of the ceremony itself. • Outcome: ◦ The court held that such a mistake could invalidate the marriage. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Interpretation: ◦ This case
Oscar MacDonald
Vervaeke v Smith [1983]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The married couple had only met a few times. ◦ The primary aim of the marriage was to secure British citizenship and avoid deportation. • Marriage Validity: ◦ Despite the marriage being arranged primarily for immigration purposes, it was upheld as valid. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Interpretation: ◦ This case
Oscar MacDonald
G v G [1924]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case involved a claim where one party to the marriage was unable to consummate due to an “invincible repugnance”—a deep-seated and involuntary aversion. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court ruled that such an inability to consummate due to an inherent and profound repugnance could be grounds
Oscar MacDonald
D-E v A-G [1845]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case centred on the definition of consummation in the context of marital validity and annulment. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court defined consummation as involving sexual intercourse that must be “ordinary and complete,” emphasising that partial or imperfect intercourse does not meet the legal criteria for consummation.
Oscar MacDonald
R v R [1952]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case addressed the requirements for legal consummation in the context of marital validity and sexual relations. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court determined that consummation requires full penetration during sexual intercourse. It specified that ejaculation or orgasm is not necessary for the intercourse to be considered complete.
Oscar MacDonald
Baxter v Baxter [1948]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case examined whether a marriage could be considered consummated if the husband used a condom during intercourse. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court held that consummation had indeed taken place despite the use of a condom. It ruled that consummation is not determined by the potential for
Oscar MacDonald
B v I [2010]
1. Facts: • The case involved a 16-year-old who was forced into marriage. The marriage took place without her genuine consent and under duress. • The young woman was only able to alert authorities about the forced marriage three years after it occurred. • She sought to have the marriage declared a nullity,
Oscar MacDonald
Bedfordshire Police Constabulary v RU & Anor [2013]
1. Facts: • The case involved a 16-year-old woman who was pressured into applying for a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) by the Bedfordshire Police to protect her from a forced marriage. • After the FMPO was granted, the young woman later sought to have the order removed, indicating that she no
Oscar MacDonald
Domestic Abuse
Yemshaw v. Hounslow London Borough Council [2011]
1. Facts: • The case involved a woman seeking local authority housing under the Housing Act 1996. She claimed that she was a victim of domestic violence (DV) and was thus entitled to housing support. • Under the previous interpretation of the Housing Act 1996, eligibility for housing support was limited to
Oscar MacDonald
R v Widdows [2011]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ A couple had been living together for two years. During this time, the man raped his wife and subjected her to violent assaults. • Legal Decision: ◦ Court of Appeal’s Ruling: ▪ The court described their relationship as ‘predominantly affectionate,’ despite the severe abuse. Impact and Analysis: • Judicial Perspective:
Oscar MacDonald
F v M [2023]
1. Facts: • In the case of F v. M, the father (F) was accused of using family proceedings as a form of coercive control (CC) over the mother (M). • The father’s actions included restricting the mother’s access to ante-natal care and isolating her, which were perceived as controlling
Oscar MacDonald
DP v EP [2023]
1. Facts: • In the case of DP v. EP, the wife was found to have engaged in significant deceit and economic abuse against the husband. • The wife led a “double life” and knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage with the intent to defraud the husband. She exploited his illiteracy to
Oscar MacDonald
Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2001]
1. Facts: • Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence) is part of a series of four related cases concerning the issue of parental contact in the context of domestic violence (DV). • The father sought contact with his child, but his request was refused due to concerns about domestic violence. • The
Oscar MacDonald
Opuz v Turkey [2009]
1. Facts: • Opuz v. Turkey involved severe domestic violence inflicted by the ex-husband, Mr. Opuz, against his former wife, Nahide, and her mother. • Incidents of Abuse: • On one occasion, Mr. Opuz stabbed Nahide, leading to her hospitalisation. • On another occasion, he deliberately ran down Nahide and her mother with a
Oscar MacDonald
Vaughan v Vaughan [1973]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case touched on the meaning of “molest” in the context of domestic relations. • Legal Decision: LJ Stephenson’s Ruling: ▪ LJ Stephenson stated that “molest” is a broad, straightforward term, and he was hesitant to provide a precise definition or paraphrase. He noted that a synonym
Oscar MacDonald
Johnson v. Walton [1990]
1. Facts: • In Johnson v. Walton, a man, Mr. Walton, sent semi-naked photos of his former girlfriend to the press without her consent. • The photos were intended to embarrass and humiliate the woman, constituting a severe breach of her privacy and dignity. • The case was brought under the grounds of
Oscar MacDonald
C v C [Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction] [1998]
1. Facts: • In C v. C, the case involved a husband seeking an order to prevent his former wife from making public revelations about their relationship through newspapers. • The husband argued that these public disclosures amounted to molestation and sought legal protection to prevent further revelations. • The wife’s intent
Oscar MacDonald
Re T (A Child) [2017]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case involved a discussion on the interpretation of the term “molestation” in legal judgments. • Legal Decision: Sir McFarlane’s Ruling: ▪ Sir McFarlane emphasised that judges should exercise “common sense” when interpreting and applying legal terms such as “molestation.” He advised against overly restrictive definitions that
Oscar MacDonald
Re Al M [2020]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case concerned the interpretation of “deliberate conduct” in legal contexts, specifically whether such conduct must be intentional to cause harm. • Legal Decision: Sir McFarlane’s Ruling: ▪ Sir McFarlane clarified that some form of “deliberate conduct” is required, but it does not need to be with
Oscar MacDonald
Re B-J (A Child) [2001]
1. Facts: • In Re B-J (A Child), the case concerned the continued contact and the potential imposition of a long-term or indefinite order to manage interactions between parties who had been separated for a significant time. • The focus was on whether such an order was justified in the context of
Oscar MacDonald
Chechi v Bashier & Ors [1999]
1. Facts: • In Chechi v Bashier, the case involved a dispute between two brothers regarding a business issue. • Although the dispute was not inherently a family matter, it was determined that the Family Law Act (FLA) could still be applicable because the parties were related and associated. 2. Outcome: • The
Oscar MacDonald
Banks v Banks [1999]
1. Facts: • In Banks v Banks, the case involved a woman suffering from manic depressive disorder, which affected her behaviour. • Her husband sought an injunction to prevent her from certain actions, but the request was denied. • The court found that issuing an order would be ineffective because the woman could
Oscar MacDonald
P v P [1999]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ Involved a dispute where the husband, severely disabled, was the subject of an injunction sought by his wife. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court granted the injunction in favour of the wife. It was determined that despite his severe disability, the husband had sufficient understanding of the matters
Oscar MacDonald
G v G [2000]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ This case addressed whether an order could be made in the context of unintentional conduct by an individual. • Legal Decision: ◦ It was determined that an order could be made even if the conduct was unintentional. However, it was crucial that the individual involved had sufficient mental
Oscar MacDonald
Moore v Moore [2004]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ This case involved a contractual license granting permission to occupy a home for a specific period of 4 days. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court held that a 4-day license was insufficient to establish a substantial interest in the property. For an interest to be deemed substantial, it
Oscar MacDonald
Chalmers v Johns [1999]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case involved assessing whether a 1.5-mile walk to school for a mother and child constituted “significant” harm in the context of welfare considerations. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court determined that the 1.5-mile walk did not amount to “significant” harm. The term “significant” was interpreted
Oscar MacDonald
B v B (Occupation Order) [1999]
1. Facts: • In B v B, a married couple lived together with two children: one child was from the husband’s previous relationship, and the other was their child together. • The husband was violent, prompting the mother to move out with their child to escape the violence. • The mother and
Oscar MacDonald
Grubb v Grubb [2009]
1. Facts: • In Grubb v Grubb, a couple acknowledged that their relationship had broken down and mutually decided they could no longer live together. • The wife had limited financial resources, while the husband was well off. • Despite the agreed separation, the husband refused to provide financial support to the wife
Oscar MacDonald
L v L [2012]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The court found that the children were being harmed by ongoing arguments between the husband and wife. The mother, being the primary carer, was directly involved in these disputes. • Legal Decision: ◦ To protect the children’s well-being and minimise their exposure to conflict, the court decided that
Oscar MacDonald
Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) [2020]
1. Facts: • In Re K, K is a single woman who has full capacity and is capable of making her own decisions. • K’s family threatened to murder her if she did not agree to marry. • Although there were further allegations of assault, these were later withdrawn. • The police obtained a
Oscar MacDonald
Hayes v Willoughby [2013]
Key Points: • Definition of Harassment: ◦ The case defined harassment as a “persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct.” This highlights the need for conduct to be both repetitive and intentionally harmful to qualify as harassment. Implications: • Clarification of Harassment: ◦ This definition provides a clear framework for determining harassment,
Oscar MacDonald
Lau v DPP [2000]
Key Points: • Course of Conduct: ◦ The case determined that two incidents separated by four months did not constitute a “course of conduct.” This underscores the need for incidents to be closely related in time to be considered as part of a continuous pattern of behaviour. Implications: • Continuity Requirement: ◦ For behaviour
Oscar MacDonald
Legal construction of the 'child'
Symington v Symington (1870-75)
1. Facts: • Symington v Symington involved a custody dispute between parents over their child. • The court initially granted custody to the mother. • The father appealed the decision, seeking to overturn the custody arrangement. 2. Outcome: • The appeal was considered, with the father arguing that he should not lose his right
Oscar MacDonald
Re McGrath [1893]
Key Points: • Meaning of ‘Welfare’: ◦ The term “welfare” should be interpreted in its broadest sense. ◦ There is no specific definition of “welfare” provided in the legislation. Instead, the concept is understood through a list of relevant factors that help determine its scope. Implications: • Broad Interpretation: ◦ The wide interpretation allows for
Oscar MacDonald
Re G [2012]
1. Facts: • Re G involved a custody dispute between parents over their children’s school placement. • The mother wanted the children to attend Orthodox Jewish schools. • The father preferred that they attend ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools. • The case required a determination of which educational environment would best serve the children’s interests.
Oscar MacDonald
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986]
1. Facts: • Gillick involved a challenge to the policy allowing doctors to prescribe contraception to girls under 16 without parental consent. • Mrs. Gillick, a mother of five daughters under 15, objected to this policy. • She contended that it undermined parental authority and sought to prevent the health authority from implementing
Oscar MacDonald
Grandparents
Re H [2014]
1. Facts: • In Re H, a child was born to a mother who was murdered by the father a year later. • Following the mother’s death, the child lived with her maternal grandmother for two years. • The authorities proposed that a Special Guardianship Order be made for the grandmother, with
Oscar MacDonald
Re L (A Child) [2007]
1. Facts: • A child, aged from 3 months to 3 years, lived with her maternal grandparents due to her parents’ drug abuse issues. • The grandparents were granted a Residence Order for the child and sought an Adoption Order. • Instead of an Adoption Order, the judge issued a Special Guardianship Order
Oscar MacDonald
Re W (A Child) [2016]
1. Facts: • Background: A young girl, born in 2014, had been living with potential adoptive parents since she was 7 months old, making it 17 months at the time of the application. • Initial Placement: The child was initially placed with foster parents, then moved to potential adoptive parents, with whom
Oscar MacDonald
A County Council v M & H & T [2021]
1. Facts: • Initial Placement: A baby was born and went into foster care shortly after birth, within two weeks. • Adoption Proceedings: The child was placed for adoption. • Grandmother’s Application: The paternal grandmother applied for a Special Guardianship (SG) order to care for the child. • Parental Objection: The child’s
Oscar MacDonald
Re C v XYZ County Council [2007]
Key Points: • Disclosure of Identity: ◦ The Court of Appeal ruled that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 did not compel the local authority to disclose the child’s identity to extended family members if the mother opposed it. ◦ Article 8 ECHR was considered, recognising the grandparents’ right to be informed
Oscar MacDonald
Re D (Care: Natural Parent Presumption) [1999]
1. Facts: • Father’s Background: The father had a history of drug abuse and multiple children from different relationships. • Grandparents’ Application: The child’s grandparents applied for a residence order to have the child placed with them. • Parental Preference: Despite the father’s problematic background, the court leaned towards keeping
Oscar MacDonald
Re H (A Child) (Residence) [2000]
1. Facts: • Current Living Situation: The child had been living with their grandparents for six years. • Mother’s Request: The mother sought to have the child returned to her care. • Grandparents’ Application: The grandparents applied for a living arrangement order to formalise their care of the child. 2. Outcome: • Court
Oscar MacDonald
Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC
Key Points: • Paramountcy Principle: ◦ The Supreme Court emphasised that the paramountcy principle (the child’s welfare being the court’s primary concern) is central to decision-making. ◦ The status of being a natural parent is just one factor among many in the balancing exercise. Implications: • Balancing Factors: ◦ The decision underscores that no single
Oscar MacDonald
Re A (A Minor) (Contact Application: Grandparent) [1995]
Key Points: • No Presumption for Grandparent Contact: ◦ The court does not automatically presume that contact with a grandparent is in the child’s best interests. ◦ Each case is assessed individually based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances. • Court’s Approach: ◦ Contact with a grandparent will be allowed if it
Oscar MacDonald
Re W (A Minor) (Contact: Application by Grandparent) [1997]
Key Points: • Hostility and Practical Difficulties: ◦ The application for contact was denied due to significant hostility between the mother and the grandparent. ◦ The court found that facilitating contact under these circumstances would be challenging. • Justice Hollis’s View: ◦ Justice Hollis acknowledged the important role that grandparents can play in a
Oscar MacDonald
Re G (A Child) [2018]
1. Facts: • Parties Involved: Jane and Carol, a same-sex female couple, wanted children and had two sons: Harry and Aidan. • Parentage Details: ◦ Harry: Born through a donor arrangement with a man who agreed not to be involved in the child’s life. ◦ Aidan: Born through a donor, Brian, who was
Oscar MacDonald
Adoption and Special Guardianship
Re D (A Child: Placement Order) [2022]
1. Facts: • Case Background: A three-year-old child was placed for adoption rather than with the paternal grandmother. • Initial Decision: The original court decision favoured adoption over placement with the grandmother, based on concerns about the grandmother’s ability to protect the child from parental conflicts. • Social Work Input: There was no
Oscar MacDonald
Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008]
1. Facts: • Case Background: The mother appealed against placement orders for her five children, arguing that these orders would jeopardise her ability to maintain contact with them. • Appeal Argument: The mother’s counsel contended that the court at first instance had erred by not applying an “enhanced” welfare test for
Oscar MacDonald
Re B (A Child) (Care Order) [2013]
1. Facts: • Case Background: A baby was placed in foster care by the Local Authority (LA) with plans for adoption. Concerns arose regarding the mother’s ability to care for the child due to her dysfunctional relationship with the step-father and a history of criminal offences. • Mother’s Capacity: The
Oscar MacDonald
Re B-S (Children) (Adoption: Leave to Oppose) [2013]
1. Facts: • Case Background: Two children, aged 2 and 3, were removed from their mother’s care. Orders were made with the parents’ consent for the children to be placed for adoption. Over time, contact between the mother and children broke down. • Mother’s Appeal: The mother opposed the adoption
Oscar MacDonald
X County Council v C [2007]
1. Facts: • Case Background: A birth mother concealed her pregnancy and requested that her baby be put up for adoption. She refused to provide information about the birth father, leaving the question of the father’s identity unresolved. • Legal Question: The issue arose as to whether attempts should be made to
Oscar MacDonald
M v F [2011]
1. Facts: • Case Background: The case involved a dispute where the mother did not want the father to be informed about the birth of their child. The mother cited concerns including her own mental health issues and the father’s previous violent behaviour towards their other three children. She feared
Oscar MacDonald
Re A, B, C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020]
1. Facts: • Case A: ◦ Background: Baby A was born to a young student mother who sought to place the baby for adoption and wanted to keep the details secret from the father and wider family. ◦ Trial Decision: The trial judge decided that there was no legal obligation to inform the
Oscar MacDonald
Re L (Adoption Order) [2020]
1. Facts: • Background: The case involved a situation where the child’s paternity was uncertain. The mother claimed that the child was conceived through a one-night stand with a stranger. She did not want to undergo sibling DNA testing and was concerned about the potential consequences if her partner learned
Oscar MacDonald
A Local Authority v EL [2020]
1. Facts: • Background: The case involved a mother who had conceived twins through a one-night stand with a stranger. She sought to keep the father’s identity concealed, desiring that the twins be adopted without notifying the father. The mother was concerned that revealing the birth would damage her relationship
Oscar MacDonald
Odievre v France [2003]
1. Facts: • Background: The case concerned a challenge to the French system of anonymous birth, where a mother’s identity remains confidential. The child, who was born from an anonymous birth, argued that the right to know their origins (protected under Articles 7 and 8 of the ECHR) was being
Oscar MacDonaldRe S, Re AJ, Re M-J
1. Facts: • Background: The Court of Appeal (CoA) considered three conjoined cases involving applicants seeking adoption orders for children. In each case, the local authority (LA) proposed Special Guardianship (SG) instead of adoption. The core issue was whether SG was a suitable alternative to adoption in the context of child
Oscar MacDonald
ED v Ireland (1995)
1. Facts: • Background: The case involved a child from the Traveller community in Ireland, who was at the centre of an adoption dispute. The adoption would result in the child losing their cultural heritage and identity associated with the Traveller community. • Legal Issue: The core issue was whether the state’
Oscar MacDonald
Re J (Adoption Order: Conditions) [1973]
Key Points: • Acceptance of Contact: ◦ The court began to recognise that allowing continued contact with a child’s family, even after adoption, does not necessarily conflict with the adoption itself. • Significance: ◦ This marked a shift towards accepting that post-adoption contact could be beneficial and feasible, reflecting a more flexible approach
Oscar MacDonald
Re C (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Conditions) [1989]
1. Facts: • Background: The case involved a child in long-term care who was to be adopted. There was a request to preserve contact between the child and a sibling. • Legal Issue: The primary issue was whether the courts could impose a formal contact order between the adopted child and their
Oscar MacDonald
Re T (Adopted Children: Contact) [1995]
Key Points: • Reluctance to Overrule Adopters: ◦ The court showed hesitance to impose contact arrangements against the wishes of prospective adopters. • Impact on Adoption: ◦ This reluctance may potentially discourage prospective adopters, as they might fear that imposed contact could interfere with their ability to form a stable family environment.
Oscar MacDonald
SB v County Council [2008]
Key Points: • Role of Courts: ◦ The case involved two siblings and addressed the role of courts concerning post-adoption contact. • Lord Wall’s Emphasis: ◦ Lord Wall highlighted that Section 46(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 specifically directs the court to consider post-adoption contact arrangements.
Oscar MacDonald
Re B (A Child) (Post-Adoption Contact) [2019]
1. Facts: • Background: The case involved a child who had been placed for adoption. The issue was whether there should be any form of contact between the child and their birth parents post-adoption. • Initial Decision: The court decided that no contact should be established between the child and the birth
Oscar MacDonald
Re R (A Child) [2005]
1. Facts: • Background: The case involved two siblings: a 17-year-old and a 7-year-old. The younger child had been placed under an interim care order at the age of 4 due to the mother’s inability to care for her. The plan for the younger child was to be adopted. • Contact
Oscar MacDonaldExtra Cases
Corbett v Corbett [1971]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case involved a couple seeking a divorce. Mrs. Corbett, who was recognised as male at birth but lived as a woman and underwent sex reassignment surgery, was challenged by Mr. Corbett on the grounds that the marriage was invalid due to her original biological sex.
Oscar MacDonald
Re Kevin [2001]
Key Points: • Case Background: ◦ The case dealt with the validity of a marriage involving a transsexual person, challenging the earlier Corbett v Corbett [1971] decision. • Legal Decision: ◦ The court criticised the Corbett case for its narrow focus on biological sex. Instead, it proposed that the validity of marriage for transsexual
Oscar MacDonald
Christine Goodwin v. UK [2002]
1. Facts: • Christine Goodwin, a trans woman, had undergone gender reassignment surgery, transitioning from male to female. • Despite the surgery and her transition, UK law did not recognise her new gender. This legal non-recognition had practical implications, affecting her pension rights and motor insurance premiums. • Goodwin argued that the lack
Oscar MacDonald
Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017]
1. Facts: • In Ilott v Blue Cross, the mother of the claimant, Heather Ilott, excluded her estranged daughter from her will. • The mother left her estate, valued at £500,000, to three animal charities. • Heather Ilott initially received an award of £50,000 from the court, which was intended to
Oscar MacDonald