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 a work colleague of Carol and subsequently became a friend of both women.

• Contact History: Brian had significant contact with Aidan and was involved with Aidan's life, including interactions with Brian’s parents and family events.

• Dispute: After the relationship between Jane, Carol, and Brian broke down, Brian sought a child arrangement order to maintain contact with Aidan. At this time, Aidan was nearly four years old.

2. Outcome:

• First Instance Decision: The court granted Brian limited contact with Aidan (seven times a year) and considered the involvement of Brian's parents (the grandparents). The order also included contact with Brian's grandparents, arguing that it was in Aidan’s best interest.

• Appeal Grounds:

1. Legal and Psychological Relationship: Jane and Carol argued that Brian’s parents had no legal or psychological relationship with Aidan and that their involvement constituted "unwarranted interference."

2. Standing of Grandparents: They contended that Brian’s parents were not parties to the proceedings and thus not entitled to apply for contact.

• Court of Appeal Decision:

◦ Jackson LJ's Ruling: Concluded that Brian’s parents were not essential for Aidan’s identity contact and expressed concerns about possible confusion for Aidan. The order allowing contact with Brian but not his parents was upheld.

◦ Procedural Concerns: The first-instance judge was found to have made a decision within her discretion based on the evidence but faced criticism for insufficient reasoning, raising questions about procedural fairness.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Legal Precedents: This case emphasises the importance of distinguishing between biological connections and psychological bonds in custody and contact decisions. It reaffirms that legal recognition of contact does not necessarily extend to extended family members without a direct and significant role in the child’s life.

• Judicial Discretion: The Court of Appeal highlighted the discretion of the first-instance judge but also noted the need for more comprehensive reasoning to avoid procedural errors.

• Best Interests of the Child: The ruling reflects the principle that the child’s best interests are paramount but should be carefully balanced with considerations of parental rights and the involvement of non-biological relatives.

• Procedural Fairness: The case underscores the need for clear and detailed judicial reasoning, especially in complex family arrangements, to ensure that all parties’ rights are adequately considered and upheld