Parenthood Flashcards
Re H-B
Parenthood is “more than a mere concept of law”
AAA v ASH, Registrar General for England and Wales and Secretary for Justice Intervening
Father and mother had Islamic marriage ceremony, wasn’t valid in UK law, child was born, father registered birth alone, as unmarried father should have been registered jointly, therefore it was not valid.
In the matter of the CA 1989 and in the matter of DW
Unusual for PR to be terminated by order of court. In this case M successfully applied for termination of father’s PR following criminal conviction for sexual abuse of two step daughters.
Re A
Unmarried couple had four year old child, M subjected to serious DV, caused PTSD to mother and anxiety to child, court terminated PR of father.
M v F, A & B
Loss of PR due to domestic violence
In the matter of A and R
Was appropriate to terminate PR of father who had been convicted and imprisoned for raping his 4 year old daughter. M applied for order to terminate F’s PR in respect of X and her 9 year old sibling. Was exceptional and extreme case, best interests for F to lose PR.
Re H (Minors) (Local Authority: PR)
Must look for commitment, attachment and reasons to attach PR
Re C (Minors)
Sufficiently enduring association, sufficient attachment proved on conduct, justification for giving PR.
Re D (Contact and PR: Lesbian Mothers and Known Father)
Found attachment, found Mr B to have real importance in child’s life, motives for applying were complex but no malice found, held that there would be PR with restrictions.
Re B
Sperm donor wanted PR, order wasn’t granted as it wouldn’t benefit the child, contact was ordered instead
Re A
PR granted to non-bio ex partner of mother
Re G (Children)
X and M were in a relationship, X donated her eggs to M, and child was conceived using anonymous sperm donor. Twins were born. A few years later, using the same sperm donor, X gave birth to D. X was genetic mother of all three children but legal mother only to D. X cared for all children until twins were four. On separation, M’s new partner got PR. Court were invited to make shared RO so X would have PR for the twins. Best interests of twins to have a non-bio parent with PR, and a bio parent without?
Re C
Mother wanted to name twins “Cyanide” and “Preacher” - LA wanted to take twins into foster care, concern over names causing harm. Used s33 powers to apply for court order to prevent naming, might interfere with M’s article 8 rights, but naming was prevented.
Re PC (Change of Surname)
Duty to consult s13 CA, where CAO is in place no person may cause the child to be known by a new surname, written consent of all those with PR required or leave of court.
Re J (Child’s Religious Upbringing and Circumcision)
Non-practising muslim father wished son to have circumcision, son lived with non practising christian mother, appeal contended that the child’s religion had been confused with his religious upbringing. Appeal was dismissed - s1(7) of the CA does not allow one parent to arrange a circumcision without the consent of the other.
T v S
Child made ward of court as M & F couldn’t agree on medical treatment. Munby refused to make order.
Re C (HIV test)
Parents didn’t want child tested for HIV, court granted order to test as it was in the child’s best interests
Re B
Child with Down’s Syndrome developed a fatal but curable blockage, consent to treatment? Judge’s duty was to look at the best interests of the child, not for the court to decide she shouldn’t have a normal life span.
Re C
Terminally ill baby, court could authorise medical treatment to alleviate suffering, would accept opinions on medical treatment provided by staff caring for the baby.
Re T
Welfare of child depended on the mother, her views were relevant
Re C
Parents believed they shouldn’t shorten life, court focused on the welfare principle
Re A (Conjoined Twins)
Separation wasn’t in best interests of Mary, but was in best interests of Jodie - had to balance competing interests, ordered surgery.
